linux-kernel - Re: kernel coding style for if ... else which cross #ifdef

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: <19f34abd0805240857l57e667fdicb240baf898f6296@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 24 May 2008 17:57:25 +0200
From:	"Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To:	"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	"Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"Steve French" <smfrench@...il.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel coding style for if ... else which cross #ifdef

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>>
>> We should actually do as you intially suggested and alwyas
>> define CONFIG_FOO no matter if FOO is built-in or module.
>> Because we do only want to distingush between the two in rare cases.
>>
>> But that is a separate patch and lets not do the same
>> mistage with CFG_*
>>
>
> I think pretty strongly that CFG_ and CONFIG_ should be exactly parallel.
>  If you want to change the meaning of CONFIG_X in the presence of modules,
> then change CFG_X at the same time.  Making them have different meanings
> will just confuse anyone wanting to convert #ifdef CONFIG_ code into
> if(CFG_) code.
>
>> I cooked up following patch - but I have not test-build a kernel yet.
>> We may use CFG_* here and there and clash is not good.
>>
>
> I have to say I'm not very keen on the CFG_* prefix.  It doesn't have any
> inherent meaning and just looks like a redundant abbreviation of CONFIG_;
> something which actually expresses the notion that it's always a
> compile-time constant would be better.  Not that I have any particularly
> good alternatives: CONST_? CCONST_? CONFIG_X_VAL? KCONFIG_? KONFIG_?
> KCONST_?

Don't know if this is really my place, but I could not agree more with
your characterisation of the CFG_* prefix and I will make the
following suggestion:

Why not use all-lowercase config_* names? It seems elegant, and fits
in with the notion that these are to be used not as macros, but as
ordinary constants.

(The only disadvantage I can see is that they will stand out less. But
I don't know how great the disadvantage is.)

You could even go further and make them real constants, something
along the lines of:

enum config_value { no, yes, mod };

static const enum config_value config_lockdep_support = yes;

(I believe the "static const" will prevent emission of this symbol in
the object file -- though I am not certain.)

You can now also test for specific values, e.g. if
(config_scsi_wait_scan == mod), in addition to simply testing the
truth value.

That concludes my suggestion.


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
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/