netdev - Re: [patch 27/28] Introduce U16_MAX and U32

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:	Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:38:19 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, satyam@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [patch 27/28] Introduce U16_MAX and U32_MAX

From: akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:12:10 -0700

> From: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
> 
> ... in kernel.h and clean up home-grown macros elsewhere in the tree.
> 
> Leave out the one in reiserfs_fs.h as it is in the userspace-visible part
> of that header. Still, #undef the (equivalent) kernel version there to
> avoid seeing "redefined, previous definition was here" gcc warnings.
> 
> [akpm@...ux-foundation.org: fix U16_MAX, U32_MAX defns]
> Signed-off-by: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>

I won't apply this one, for two reasons:

1) The reiserfs definition is better, it is _type_ based.
   Please use (~(__u16)0) and (~(__u32)0), respectively.

2) The reiserfs definition is going to define an equivalent
   value, so just adding an #undef and still letting reiserfs
   override is wrong.  Why put a common define in kernel.h
   if other headers still keep their own crufty copy too?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html