linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] checkpatch: extend attributes check to handle more patterns

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3b706950110fe35c566dd00b684dc426867261e5.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:14:45 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] checkpatch: extend attributes check to handle more
 patterns

On Thu, 2020-10-22 at 20:29 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 8:22 PM Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com> wrote:
> > It is generally preferred that the macros from
> > include/linux/compiler_attributes.h are used, unless there
> > is a reason not to.
[]
> I am a bit worried about the code size though. Is it better altogether
> to have a shared function for parameterized/non parameterized
> __attribute__ arguments? Might have to categorize the macros then.
> 
> What do you think is better?

I think A single shared mechanism better and more extensible.

Renaming all the code types from PREFER_<FOO> to something else
like PREFER_DEFINED_ATTRIBUTE_MACRO would be OK.