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: <483859BB.9030809@zytor.com>
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/