linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] edac x38: new MC driver module

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: <20081126003025.85f19670.h.mitake@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:30:25 +0900
From:	Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@...il.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Doug Thompson <norsk5@...oo.com>,
	"dougthompson@...ssion.com" <dougthompson@...ssion.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] edac x38: new MC driver module

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:13:58 -0800
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> > I think which need __ is variable type name, not each variable name.
> > Name of each local variables can't effect namespace.
> 
> Wrong.  It affects the namespace in the sense that it can interfere with
> user-created macros.  Again, this is only an issue for user space.

Sorry, I've misunderstood. I didn't think about macros.

> 
> > And I found this comment in asm-generic/int-ll64.h,
> > /*
> >  * __xx is ok: it doesn't pollute the POSIX namespace. Use these in the
> >  * header files exported to user space
> >  */
> > 
> > According to your advice, I rewrote the patch, how is this?
> 
> Are you planning to add writeq() as well?
> 

Yes, I want to add writeq().
But there's a problem that
I don't have a plan to use writeq() now, so I can't test writeq() soon.

How is this? I think it isn't bad. I want to hear your opinion.

static inline void writeq(__u64 val, volatile void __iomem *addr)
{
	writel((unsigned int)val, addr);
	writel((unsigned int)(val >> 32), addr+1);
}

--
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/