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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <47DA9D0E.8080304@goop.org>
Date:	Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:43:10 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: simplify sync_test_bit()

Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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.

I'm especially wary of the naked #define, since it will affect any 
instance of sync_test_bit:

struct bit_thingy {
	unsigned sync_test_bit:1;
	unsigned other_test_bit:1;
	...
};

J
--
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/