| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:40:51 -0500 From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Motohiro Kosaki <Motohiro.Kosaki@...fujitsu.com>, Mike Travis <travis@....com> Subject: Re: percpu: Define this_cpu_cpumask_var_t_ptr Hello, Christoph. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 08:03:25PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Its a pretty simple function (actually more a name substituion) so I > did not think it worth creating an inline function. Unless there are specific reasons like multi-type arg or breaking hellish definition order dependency, I think we're better off with inline functions, especially here, as the implementation will happily accept arguments of the wrong type. > _t is there because I wanted to include the full "ugly" name of the > variable to make it similarly ugly. It is needed to make the clear > distinction to "struct cpumask *" which does not have these issues. The compiler can enforce that rule easily if the interface functions are properly typed. I think it'd be far better to go with properly typed accessors with less unwieldy names. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists