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:   Wed, 10 Apr 2019 21:47:49 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 20/41] backtrace-test: Simplify stack trace handling

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:28:14PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Replace the indirection through struct stack_trace by using the storage
> array based interfaces.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> ---
>  kernel/backtracetest.c |   11 +++--------
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/backtracetest.c
> +++ b/kernel/backtracetest.c
> @@ -48,19 +48,14 @@ static void backtrace_test_irq(void)
>  #ifdef CONFIG_STACKTRACE
>  static void backtrace_test_saved(void)
>  {
> -	struct stack_trace trace;
>  	unsigned long entries[8];
> +	unsigned int nent;

"Nent" isn't immediately readable to my eyes.  How about just good old
"nr_entries"?  (for this patch and all the others)

-- 
Josh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists