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

Message-ID: <y2t72cf309c1003310510o87c33ebew5278758fe76556a9@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:40:25 +0530
From:	Sachin Pandhare <sachinpandhare@...il.com>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kmemleak_scan_area

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> 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 :)).

It has not caused any problem.
Thanks,

>
> --
> 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/