linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] romfs: cleanup romfs

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: <20090407174417.GC14462@lst.de>
Date:	Tue, 7 Apr 2009 19:44:17 +0200
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] romfs: cleanup romfs_fs.h

On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 07:44:57PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 06:07:08PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > There's no kernel-only content in it anymore, so move it to header-y
> > and remove the superflous #ifdef __KERNEL__.
> 
> today there is no difference between header-y and unifdef-y.
> We pass everything through unifdef these days.

The __KERNEL__ removal still applies, and as long as we have two
different variables it should use the correct one.

But why do you send all through unifdef anyway?  That's a pretty bad
signal to send when we try to get people to do cleanly seprated headers.

--
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/