linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2] x86: allocate cpumask during check irq vectors

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:	Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:29:49 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] x86: allocate cpumask during check irq vectors

I strongly disagree with putting variables in file scope when function scope will do, but I do like to see static variables before automatics.  Anyway, this is bikeshedding.

Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
>> s/global/static/, with a big loud comment why it is okay.
>
>It would be a global no matter which form we use, but for 
>maintainability reasons I generally prefer a static put right before 
>the function that uses it:
>
>	static cpumask_t mask;
>
>	static func(...)
>	{
>	}
>
>That makes it really apparent that it's a global - statics are easily 
>missed when hiding amongst local variables.
>
>Thanks,
>
>	Ingo

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone.  Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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/