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 11:08:59 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> CC: Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: kernel coding style for if ... else which cross #ifdef Sam Ravnborg wrote: >> I don't think we want to use "1 or 2"... I suspect we want to use the >> same booleans we currently have. > I'm a bit dense (or I need more coffe - it's morning here). > What "same booleans"? Sorry, we already have CONFIG_FOO (meaning =y) and CONFIG_FOO_MODULE (meaning =m). This seems to work well and will generally do the right thing. If we had CFG_FOO=2 for the case of FOO=n then the clean use of: if (CFG_FOO && blah)... ... wouldn't work as nicely. >> I would suggest CFG_* instead of CONFIG_* for the new set. > Agreed. -hpa -- 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