linux-kernel - Re: thunderbolt: Deletion of unnecessary checks before the function call "ring

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, 23 Nov 2014 16:51:53 +0100 (CET)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
cc:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: thunderbolt: Deletion of unnecessary checks before the function
 call "ring_free"



On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/char/tpm/xen-tpmfront.c?id=fc14f9c1272f62c3e8d01300f52467c0d9af50f9#n268
> > 
> > I think static functions can be named whatever
> > the developer chooses.
> 
> I agree also that this implementation detail is correct in principle.
> 
> Is a renaming of such identifiers feasible so that the probability of
> other name clashes can be reduced and corresponding static source
> code analysis might become a bit easier?

Why not just make the static source code analysis aware of the problem?  
You can treat static functions differently that non-static ones.  There is 
no need to change the code.

julia
--
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/