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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 09:18:12 +0200 From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 01/23] asm: simd context helper API On 1 October 2018 at 03:43, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:35 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Oh, and another thing (and I'm surprised checkpatch.pl didn't complain >> >>>>>>> about it): the use of typedef in new code is strongly discouraged. >> >>>>>>> This policy predates my involvement, so perhaps Joe can elaborate on >> >>>>>>> the rationale? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> In case it matters, the motivation for making this a typedef is I >> >>>>>> could imagine this at some point turning into a more complicated >> >>>>>> struct on certain platforms and that would make refactoring easier. I >> >>>>>> could just make it `struct simd_context` now with 1 member though... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Yes that makes sense >> >>>> >> >>>> The rationale for it being a typedef or moving to a struct now? >> >>> >> >>> Yes just switch to a struct. >> >> >> >> Okay. No problem with that, but will wait to hear from Joe first. >> > >> > Why do you need to hear from me again? >> > >> > As far as I know, the only info about typedef avoidance are in >> > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst section 5. >> > >> > >> >> I personally prefer it with the typedef. If this were my code, I’d say the coding style is silly for opaque tiny structs like this. > > I'll stick with a typedef. Reading the style guide, this clearly falls > into 5.a, 5.b, and maybe 5.c. For 5.a, at some point this will > possibly contain architecture specific blobs. For 5.b, it is just an > enum (integer) right now. I can live with that, but other may still object. In any case, since you are using the enum member as a bitfield, it would be better to typedef it to int instead, and retain the enum definition only for the symbolic constants.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists