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  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:	Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:10:25 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <>
	Thierry Reding <>,, Russell King <>,
	Catalin Marinas <>,
	Stephen Boyd <>,, Will Deacon <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] asm-generic/io.h: Implement generic {read,write}s*()

On Saturday 19 July 2014 10:53:38 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Then there are the other type where one IO access function
> may re-use the implementation of another IO access function:
>     #ifndef writeb
>     #define writeb __raw_writeb
>     #endif
> This could have been implmented like this:
> #ifndef writeb
> #define writeb writeb
> static inline void writeb(u8 b, volatile void __iomem *addr)
> {
>    __raw_writeb(b, addr);
> }
> #endif
> In this way the prototype of the function is easy to understand and
> we avoid the macro tricks were we blindly replace one function name,
> with another function name.
> And we also use the same pattarn all over for the various functions.
> Concerning the efficiency the compiler should be smart enough to
> do the same independent on the two implmentations.

I really don't have a strong opinion on those, as you say one is a
little shorter and the other is a little more readable, so my
preference in a case like this is to leave it up to the person
who last touches the code and let them decide.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists