linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dyn_array: using %pF instead of print_fn_descriptor

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: <20080829152053.92fa6fd4.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:20:53 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yhlu.kernel@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dyn_array: using %pF instead of
 print_fn_descriptor_symbol

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:07:49 -0700
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:

> +		printk(KERN_DEBUG "per_cpu_dyn_array %pF ==> [%#lx - %#lx]\n",
> +			da->name, phys, phys + size);

This:

struct dyn_array {
	void **name;

is a bit confusing.  One normally expects a variable called "name" to
point at a character string.

What _does_ this thing point at?  There are no code comments which I
can find, it's unobvious from the source code, the type is the
information-free void** and the identifier is misleading.

I find that documenting the data structures is the best way of making
code understandable (and hence maintainable).

--
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/