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]

Date:	Sat, 24 May 2008 08:42:01 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel coding style for if ... else which cross #ifdef

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 10:42:58PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >>*However*, the best would really be if we changed Kconfig to emit 
> >>configuration constants what were 0/1 instead of undefined/defined. 
> >>That way we could do:
> >>
> >>	if (CONFIG_SOMETHING && foo) {
> >>		/* ... something ... */
> >>	} else if ((mode & S_IWUGO) == 0) {
> >>		/* ... */
> >
> >We could do that - but then it would need another
> >name not to clash with all the places where we rely
> >on CONFIG_FOO='n' => CONFIG_FOO is not defined.
> >
> >We could teach kconfig to emit something like:
> >#define KFOO 0   (for the 'n' value)
> >And 1 or 2 for the y and m values.
> >
> 
> 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"?

> I would suggest CFG_* instead of CONFIG_* for the new set.
Agreed.

	Sam
--
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/