linux-kernel - Re: kmemleak_scan

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: <tnx7hosy9t2.fsf@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:06:49 +0100
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:	Sachin Pandhare <sachinpandhare@...il.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kmemleak_scan_area

Sachin Pandhare <sachinpandhare@...il.com> wrote:
> In kmemleak.c file "kmemleak_scan_area" is appearing as a structure as
> well as a function.
> e.g.:
> - struct kmemleak_scan_area {
> - void __ref kmemleak_scan_area(const void *ptr, size_t size, gfp_t gfp)
>
> Do you think it is a good to have it like that?

Does it cause any problems? I think C has different namespaces for types
and functions, so they should not collide. I agree that from a
readability perspective, it would be better if they are named
differently (like kmemleak_scan_area_node :)).

-- 
Catalin
--
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/