linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: OLPC: speed up device tree creation during boot (v2)

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]

Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 2010 07:04:04 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	michael@...erman.id.au
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ued.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: OLPC: speed up device tree creation during boot
 (v2)

On 11/18/2010 03:02 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 09:34 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> Look at the general balance of hardship: very little harm is done (it's not a big 
>> deal if a variable is only used in a single function) but having it with local 
>> variables can be _really_ harmful - for example i overlooked them when i reviewed 
>> this patch. I dont like important details obscured - i like them to be apparent. 
>> Again, this is something that some people can parse immediately on the visual level 
>> - me and many others cannot.
> 

No, sorry, this sounds like a personal preference that is well out of
line with the vast majority of C programmers I've ever come across, not
just in the Linux kernel world but outside of it.

> What about:
> 
> int foo(void)
> {
> 	static int bar;
> 
> 	struct thing_struct *thing;
> 	int other_var;
> 	char *p;
> 
> 	...
> }
> 
> I think the visual wrongness of that formatting would be enough for me
> to stop and look twice. Though I guess it doesn't work if you have few,
> or no other variables other than the statics to declare.
> 

I wouldn't object to a convention like that, but let's bloody well
realize that that is a brand new convention, and if this convention is
going to stick at all it needs to be made official and put in CodingStyle.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/