linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86: more header untangling

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090213114755.GH15679@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:47:55 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86: more header untangling


* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Another possibility would be to make a further distinction between 
>> 'local methods' and 'compound methods'. Local methods are the ones that 
>> only relate to a given
>> data type. Compound methods combine multiple types. We could allow 
>> local methods in type headers, and forbid compound methods.
>>   
>
> Yes, that's pretty much the approach I've been taking.  Particularly  
> since these little helper functions are smoothing over a given type  
> being defined in different ways in different environments (the types  
> themselves are different, but the types of the functions operating on  
> them are the same).

ok, cool, no disagreements then. Your point about the type being
standardized by the helpers is important, i missed that aspect.

	Ingo
--
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/