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

Date:	Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	satyam@...radead.org
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 27/28] Introduce U16_MAX and U32_MAX

From: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:59:09 +0530 (IST)

> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, David Miller wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Because removing the (re-)definition of U32_MAX from in there in
> reiserfs_fs.h will break builds of all userspace users of U32_MAX and
> max_reiserfs_offset(), would it not? I haven't looked at any reiserfs
> userspace tools source code, so possibly none such (that use
> max_reiserfs_offset) exist, but I thought it better to be safe.
> I'll have a look at the reiserfs-utils package, just in case.

If this is the case then it would be better to pick different macro
names from the one's reiserfs already defines in it's header exported
userland interfaces.

Or, alternatively, make sure reiserfs's headers get the appropriate
headers and defines even when used in userspace.
-
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