| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 09:33:50 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@...land.pl> Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: some numbers on macros On Sat, 24 May 2008 17:48:19 +0200 Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@...land.pl> wrote: > Hello, > > I wrote a rather dumb script to see some numbers on macros I > was interested in. The script basically parses *.c file, finds macro > definitions and counts how many times each macro was used in this > source file. The script doesn't see any context so it can produce > false positives - that is one of the reasons it doesn't look into > header files - it's simply too dumb. > > The macros I was interested in were these which are: > - defined and unused > - defined and used only once > - defined more than once > > I dont want to start another cleanup-patches-storm so first I'd like > to know if this excersise is worth it as unused macros do not do much > harm. > > Would such patches be accepted? An unused define/macro that was declared in a .c file isn't very interesting to be honest; that tends to be helper macros for the developer and removing those is just counter productive. unused macros in common header files are an indication of stale APIs otoh.. and might be of some interest. (Same for static inline in headers) -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists