linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/13] uapi: General notification ring definitions [ver #4]

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: <575fa290-961f-8dcd-3b76-4608daa5ee0e@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:49:49 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, raven@...maw.net,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] uapi: General notification ring definitions [ver
 #4]

On 6/13/19 6:34 AM, David Howells wrote:
> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
>> What is the problem with inline functions in UAPI headers?
> 
> It makes compiler problems more likely; it increases the potential for name
> collisions with userspace; it makes for more potential problems if the headers
> are imported into some other language; and it's not easy to fix a bug in one
> if userspace uses it, just in case fixing the bug breaks userspace.
> 
> Further, in this case, the first of Darrick's functions (calculating the
> length) is probably reasonable, but the second is not.  It should crank the
> tail pointer and then use that, but that requires 
> 
>>>> Also, weird multiline comment style.
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>
>> Yes really.
> 
> No.  It's not weird.  If anything, the default style is less good for several
> reasons.  I'm going to deal with this separately as I need to generate some
> stats first.
> 
> David
> 

OK, maybe you are objecting to the word "weird."  So the multi-line comment style
that you used is not the preferred Linux kernel multi-line comment style
(except in networking code) [Documentation/process/coding-style.rst] that has been
in effect for 20+ years AFAIK.


-- 
~Randy