linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: simplify sync_test

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <47DAA5C2.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:20:18 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: simplify sync_test_bit()

>#define sync_test_bit(nr, addr) test_bit(nr, addr)
>
>would be better, but seems reasonable to me. Or even an inline for 
>consistency.

I'm usually intentionally using just the names, without parameters and
not as inline, in such alias definitions so that in case the name gets used
as a function pointer (arguably unlikely here) there's not going to be
any missing definition or duplicate function instantiation. But from a
functionality point of view, either of the alternatives you suggest is
of course as good.

Jan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/