[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87pozzvzj6.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:27:41 +0100
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT] Networking
On Wed, Oct 28 2015, Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 10:39, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Get rid of it. And I don't *ever* want to see that shit again.
>
> I don't want to give up on that this easily:
>
> In future I would like to see an interface like this. It is often hard
> to do correct overflow/wrap-around tests and it would be great if there
> are helper functions which could easily and without a lot of thinking be
> used by people to remove those problems from the kernel.
I agree - proper overflow checking can be really hard. Quick, assuming a
and b have the same unsigned integer type, is 'a+b<a' sufficient to
check overflow? Of course not (hint: promotion rules). And as you say,
it gets even more complicated for signed types.
A few months ago I tried posting a complete set of fallbacks for older
compilers (https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/19/358), but nothing really
happened. Now I know where Linus stands, so I guess I can just delete
that branch.
Rasmus
--
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