linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define find_symbol_in_section

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 16 Jul 2015 20:59:47 +0930
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Minfei Huang <mhuang@...hat.com>, rob.jones@...ethink.co.uk,
	amhyung@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Minfei Huang <mnfhuang@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define find_symbol_in_section_t as function type to simplify the code

Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 07:22:32 +0930 Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>> It's shorter, but it's less clear.  typedefs on functions are not very
>> useful:
>> 1) They require readers to look in two places to see how to use the
>>    function (ie each_symbol_section).
>> 2) They can't use the typedef to declare their function, since that
>>    doesn't work in C.
>> 
>> If the function were being used many times, it makes sense.  But
>> it's only used twice, once static inside module.c.
>> 
>
> Using a foo_t typedef for a function callback is a common pattern. 
> It's (almost) the only approved use of typedefs.  The usage is
> widespread enough that when one sees a foo_t type, one says "ahah,
> that's a function pointer".

I always thought of a type which can map to varying types under
different arch/configs as the typical typedef.

> Sorry, but I don't think "Rusty doesn't like it" is a good reason for
> the module code to be different.

But "Rusty has to maintain it" is a pretty strong counter argument,
IMHO.

> All of us dislike some aspects of
> kernel coding practices, but we go along because consistency is more
> important.

Consistency is important when it makes things more readable, sure.

I don't think any kernel devs are going to get confused seeing a
function pointer, and I think this patch makes the code slightly
less readable.

Enough not to apply the patch, but not enough waste more time on it.

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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/