linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: use __noreturn instead of directly __attribute_

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

Message-ID: <20150406193509.GA4476@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de>
Date:	Mon, 6 Apr 2015 21:35:09 +0200
From:	Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>
To:	Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: use __noreturn instead of directly
 __attribute__ definition

Hi,

> We no need to include <linux/compiler.h> to the arch/x86/boot/boot.h,
> because boot.h already includes "bitops.h" which already includes
> <linux/compiler.h>.

"Depends", I'd say (no pun, and intended :).

This currently implicitly working constellation
might break both for:
- boot.h no longer requiring bitops.h
- bitops.h no longer including linux/compiler.h

IMHO explicitly #include:ing parts
which certain code does actively depend on after all
is both a "code honesty"
and a documentation issue ("Hmm, which interfaces does this implementation
depend on? Ah, yeah...")

Food for thought,

Andreas Mohr

P.S.: thanks for your contribution!

-- 
GNU/Linux. It's not the software that's free, it's you.
--
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/