linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] semaphore: Resolve some shadow warnings

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140903093950.GE4783@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Sep 2014 11:39:50 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
Cc:	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] semaphore: Resolve some shadow warnings

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 09:16:23PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
> 
> It would, but then it would be unclear as to what units the timeout
> was in. I have no other objection to timeout, I was just trying to
> preserve the meaning in the existing overloaded name. The "n" to me
> suggests a number and, if anything, number of jiffies conveys a more
> precise meaning than simply jiffies did.

Use a comment for the unit. If you look you'll find tons of 'timeout'
variables that measure in jiffies (and others of course).
--
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/