linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] checkpatch: don't fake typedefs with #define

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]

Date:	Tue, 22 May 2012 20:25:09 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Ryan Mallon <rmallon@...il.com>
Cc:	Phil Carmody <ext-phil.2.carmody@...ia.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, apw@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] checkpatch: don't fake typedefs with #define

On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 12:50 +1000, Ryan Mallon wrote:
[]
>   #define __videocard struct card_info
>     __attribute__((section(".videocards")))
> I'm guessing is because typedefs don't handle __attribute__.

Probably not and likely it shouldn't be
either a define or a typedef.

It's just not frequently used enough.

Maybe it could be more like
DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE though that's
not pretty either.

> We could test for lots of things in checkpatch, but it seems more
> sensible to check for issues which are likely.

Maybe, but being comprehensive isn't
necessarily bad either.

Look at __setup, all the <foo>_ops tests,
the blackfin tests, etc. in checkpatch.

I don't care much one way or another.

Again, if Andrew or Andy wants to push it
forward, it's fine by me.

cheers, Joe

--
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/