linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] [GPIO]: new arch-independent simple-gpio driver

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]

Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2008 15:42:44 -0700
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	Ben Nizette <bn@...sdigital.com>,
	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
Cc:	Bryan Wu <cooloney@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [GPIO]: new arch-independent simple-gpio driver

On Wednesday 26 March 2008, Ben Nizette wrote:
> > +#define pr_devinit(fmt, args...) ({ static const __devinitdata char __fmt[] = fmt; printk(__fmt, ## args); })
> > +#define pr_init(fmt, args...) ({ static const __initdata char __fmt[] = fmt; printk(__fmt, ## args); })
> 
> Should your pr_*init macros be accepted somewhere higher up the tree?
> Either that or dropped, it doesn't seem right wedging them in here.
> Sure it might cost you a few hundred bytes of RAM but would be nice to
> keep it all consistent across the kernel.

Me, I'm all in favor of getting rid of structural code bloat.
A few hundred bytes of such stuff shaved out a dozen drivers
on a given platforms would be almost free page saved!  :)

So I'd be interested in seeing those get submitted ... but as
inline functions, not fancy macros.  (Once they're submitted,
then let the flamage begin ... much less than kernel I18N!)

- Dave

--
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/