linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RESEND] C99 initializers for DEFINE_RATELIMIT

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: <20081110093026.fe4bf90e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:30:26 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc:	"Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanassche@...il.com>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Dave Young" <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RESEND] C99 initializers for DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE()

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:16:02 -0800 Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:43:24 +0100 Bart Van Assche wrote:
> 
> > Could someone please be so kind to ACK the patch below, NAK it or tell
> > me whether I should send the patch below to someone else ?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Bart.
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Bart Van Assche
> > <bart.vanassche@...il.com> wrote:
> > > A few months ago (July 25, 2008) the printk ratelimiting code has been
> > > rewritten. This patch added a.o. the new macro DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(). The
> > > patch below converts the initializers in that macro to C99 style.
> > >
> > > For more information about the printk ratelimiting rewrite, see also commit
> > > 717115e1a5856b57af0f71e1df7149108294fc10
> > > (http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.27.y.git;a=commit;h=717115e1a5856b57af0f71e1df7149108294fc10).
> > >
> > > Impact: cleanup, no functionality changed.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/ratelimit.h b/include/linux/ratelimit.h
> > > index 18a5b9b..61cc908 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/ratelimit.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/ratelimit.h
> > > @@ -13,8 +13,9 @@ struct ratelimit_state {
> > >        unsigned long begin;
> > >  };
> > >
> > > -#define DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(name, interval, burst)          \
> > > -               struct ratelimit_state name = {interval, burst,}
> > > +#define DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(name, interval_value, burst_value)      \
> > > +       struct ratelimit_state name =                                   \
> > > +               { .interval = (interval_value), .burst = (burst_value) }
> > >
> > >  extern int __ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs);
> 
> I thought that Andrew would pick it up.

I already have a patch queued which does this
(linux-ratelimith-fixed-missing-initializer-warning.patch).  I sent it
to Linus on October 29 and he did not apply it, so I parked it for 2.6.29.

> Nit:  I would put the .interval = ... and .burst = ... on separate lines.

linux-ratelimith-fixed-missing-initializer-warning.patch does it that way.
--
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/