linux-kernel - Re: [FOR REVIEW, PATCH 2/2] introduce "struct wait_opts" to simplify do

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: <20090507064120.GB15220@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 May 2009 08:41:20 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [FOR REVIEW, PATCH 2/2] introduce "struct wait_opts" to
	simplify do_wait() pathes

On 05/06, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> One small nit with the definition above: when using vertical spacing
> (which really looks nice) we tend to put the asterix to the type
> itself, not to the variable. I.e.:
>
> 	enum pid_type		wtype;
> 	struct pid *		wpid;
> 	int			wflags;
>
> ( This is done to separate the field name from the type - the
>   pointer nature of the field is part of the type, not part of the
>   name. )

Indeed, I like this more too. But checkpatch.pl disagrees!

> it makes sense to write this as:
>
> > +	wopts.wtype	= type;
> > +	wopts.wpid	= pid;
> > +	wopts.wflags	= options;
> > +
> > +	wopts.winfo	= infop;
> > +	wopts.wstat	= NULL;
> > +	wopts.wrusage	= ru;
> > +
> > +	ret = do_wait(&wopts);
>
> (and in other places as well). Vertical spacing for assignments
> looks messy if done for 1-3 assignment lines, but in the case above
> we've got 6 of them so it has a nice vertical structure already that
> helps readability.

Done.

> Regarding the patch itself: i guess we could do it as-is - but if
> you think there's regression risks, a safer approach would be to
> create 5-6 patches to build up all the structure parameters one by
> one.

Oh, I tried to do it this way first. But I got lost and decided to
make a single patch. Besides, if I make 6 patches I should try to test
each one...

> Anyway ... provided you give it some testing:

Well, I did now. But of course this needs more testing. As you see,
the patch is trivial, it "must" be correct. Except some silly typos
are possible.

> Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>

Thanks!

Oleg.

--
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/