linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2.6.25-rc5 2/2] gpiochip

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080314013303.GA15600@codemonkey.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:33:03 -0400
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	avorontsov@...mvista.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.25-rc5 2/2] gpiochip_reserve()

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 04:06:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
 > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:52:21 -0800
 > David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
 > 
 > > +int __init __must_check gpiochip_reserve(int start, int ngpio)
 > 
 > I applaud the addition of __msut_check to a newly-added function of this
 > kind, but we usually only add the tag to the declaration, not to the
 > definition as well.

A bit unfortunate really, given that use of ctags and friends in some editors
jumps to the first definition they come across, so if the prototype is stuffed
somewhere in include/, it shows the definitions from drivers or fs or wherever
that doesn't have the tag.

Given it doesn't cost us anything except a few more bytes in the source code,
is consistency such a bad thing?

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
--
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/