linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] drivers: convert struct spinlock to spinlock

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:	Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:21:33 +0100
From:	"Arend van Spriel" <arend@...adcom.com>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	backports@...r.kernel.org, alexander.stein@...tec-electronic.com,
	brudley@...adcom.com, rvossen@...adcom.com, frankyl@...adcom.com,
	kanyan@...adcom.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	brcm80211-dev-list@...adcom.com, kyungmin.park@...sung.com,
	s.nawrocki@...sung.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch,
	intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	srinidhi.kasagar@...ricsson.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] drivers: convert struct spinlock to spinlock_t

On 11/30/2012 09:25 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> <mcgrof@...not-panic.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com> wrote:
>>> So what is the rationale here. During mainlining our drivers we had to
>>> remove all uses of 'typedef struct foo foo_t;'. The Linux CodingStyle
>>> (chapter 5 Typedefs) is spending a number of lines explaining why.
>>>
>>> So is spinlock_t an exception to this rule simply because the kernel
>>> uses spinlock_t all over the place.
>>
>> Yes.
> 
> Let me provide a better explanation. In practice drivers should not be
> creating their own typedefs given that generally the reasons to create
> them do not exist for drivers. The kernel may provide their own though
> for reasons explained in CodingStyle and in such cases the drivers
> should use these supplied typedefs.

Ok. Fine by me. It just looked like a case of saying a and doing b.
Thanks for taking time giving the better explanation :-)

Gr. AvS


--
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/