linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] ->get_link(), ->put

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, 3 Jan 2016 12:41:47 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ->get_link(), ->put_link() and cookies

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Just to make sure - that does include 13/13, presumably?

Ugh, no, I had set that aside and then forgot all about it.

I'm not sure about 13/13.  I'm ok with it, but I'm not sure it's any
less confusing than the cookie was.

I like how it removes "put_link()" as a callback, but at the same time
I think it's even more abstract than the cookie was.

The main worry I have is that the naming is generic, but there's only
a single very specialized use for it. Do we expect other uses?

Because if not, I think it would be clearer if it was named to be more
concretely about putlink, and avoid the fact that it feels very
abstract.

Don't get me wrong - abstract generalized helper functions are cool.
But people aren't very abstract, and it tends to make for confusing
code when you aren't intimately familiar with the rules.

                 Linus
--
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/