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: <20090507064559.GC15220@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 May 2009 08:45:59 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [FOR REVIEW, PATCH 2/2] introduce "struct wait_opts" to
	simplify do_wait() pathes

On 05/06, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> I like the idea just fine.  Drop the "w" on every field name.
> If you want them to have a greppable uniqueness/prefix,

Yes!

> use "wo_".
> I'd go with a shorter name for the canonical pointer parameter,
> like "w" or "wo".

Done.

> It looks cleaner to me to keep the several args to do_wait() and have
> it use a single initializer with = { .foo = a, .bar = b } syntax there.

Yes, I considered this option too. But since (I hope) you do not have
a strong opinion on this, I'd prefer to keep the code as is. This way
do_wait() looks more symmetrical wrt to other helpers. And we don't
copy args twice.

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/