linux-kernel - Re: [vmw_vmci 11/11] Apply the header code to make VMCI build

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: <1365693798.5911635.1343419627088.JavaMail.root@vmware.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Andrew Stiegmann <astiegmann@...are.com>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, pv-drivers@...are.com,
	vm-crosstalk@...are.com, cschamp@...are.com,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [vmw_vmci 11/11] Apply the header code to make VMCI build



----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>
> To: "Andrew Stiegmann" <astiegmann@...are.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, pv-drivers@...are.com,
> vm-crosstalk@...are.com, cschamp@...are.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:53:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [vmw_vmci 11/11] Apply the header code to make VMCI build
> 
> > > > +
> > > > +#define CAN_BLOCK(_f) (!((_f) & VMCI_QPFLAG_NONBLOCK))
> > > > +#define QP_PINNED(_f) ((_f) & VMCI_QPFLAG_PINNED)
> > > 
> > > Looks like poor obscufation.
> > > Use a statis inline function if you need a helper for this.
> > 
> > These definitions are intended more as a helper to make reading the
> > code easier.  IMHO ts a lot easier to read
> > 
> > if (CAN_BLOCK(flags))
> > 
> > compared to
> > 
> > if (!(flags & VMCI_QPFLAG_NONBLOCK))
> > 
> > Wouldn't you agree?  I'm not sure something this simple warrants a
> > static inline
> > function but I don't see any harm in converting it over to that.
> 
> I would put it the other way around. I cannot see that such simple
> stuff warrants a #define.
> A static inline is (almost) always preferable to hide code in a
> macro.
> 
> For once you get better type-checks.
> And semantics are also much simpler. With a macro you can do so many
> silly things.

Fair enough.  I'll make them into static inline functions.

> 	Sam
> 
--
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/