linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/17] UAPI: Make linux/patchkey.h easier to parse

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: <20111214015107.340d6f5c9b7bb886ec51a840@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:51:07 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/17] UAPI: Make linux/patchkey.h easier to parse

Hi David,

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:57:57 +0000 David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, it doesn't seem to be necessary.  The header splitter managed to cope
> without it and did the right thing.  I think what happened was that the
> splitter didn't recognise the _LINUX_PATCHKEY_H_INDIRECT thing as a reinclusion
> guard, so it just tossed that into the UAPI header, then recognised the
> _LINUX_PATCHKEY_H thing as the reinclusion guard and proceeded from there.
> 
> Would you prefer that I remove that from the comments or would you prefer that
> I leave things unchanged?

Well, the comments should really reflect the patch, right?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped