linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] mm: provide one common K(x) macro

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: <YS9WiF6enhSo8sYc@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 1 Sep 2021 12:31:36 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] mm: provide one common K(x) macro

On Wed 01-09-21 11:21:49, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> There are various places where the K(x) macro is defined. This commit
> gets rid of multiple definitions and provides a common one.
> 
> This doesn't solve open-coding this macro in various other places. This
> should be addressed by another subsequent commit.

Why is this an improvement? You are adding a header file for a single
macro which sounds like an overkill. The overall net outcome is added
lines of code. It is not like K() or any of its variant is adding a
maintenance burden due to code duplication. So why do we want to change
the existing state?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs