linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] staging: pi433: Rename enum optionOnOff in rf69

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]

Message-ID: <20171206104414.xv2yqldf5xjovxxr@mwanda>
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:44:14 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Marcus Wolf <marcus.wolf@...rthome-wolf.de>
Cc:     Simon Sandström <simon@...anor.nu>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux@...f-Entwicklungen.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] staging: pi433: Rename enum optionOnOff in
 rf69_enum.h

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 12:31:31PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 06.12.2017 um 12:23 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 11:46:41AM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_enum.h b/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_enum.h
> > > > index babe597e2ec6..5247e9269de9 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_enum.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_enum.h
> > > > @@ -18,9 +18,9 @@
> > > >    #ifndef RF69_ENUM_H
> > > >    #define RF69_ENUM_H
> > > > -enum optionOnOff {
> > > > -	optionOff,
> > > > -	optionOn
> > > > +enum option_on_off {
> > > > +	OPTION_OFF,
> > > > +	OPTION_ON
> > > >    };
> > > >    enum mode {
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Simon,
> > > 
> > > nice work.
> > > 
> > > Thank you very much for all the style fixes :-)
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Wow...  This was the one patch I thought was going to sink this
> > patchset...
> 
> I don't get that. What do you mean?
> 
> > Isn't enum optionOnOff part of the userspace headers?
> > 
> > I thought we weren't allowed to change that.
> 
> All enums are for user space (or inteded to be used in userspace in future).
> Didn't introduce enums for internal use.

So what I'm asking is if we do this change, does it break any userspace
programs which are used *right now*.  In other words will programs stop
compiling because we've renamed an enum?

regards,
dan carpenter