netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/4][RFC]: coding convention for CCID-struct prefixes

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: <20091005123823.GE30535@ghostprotocols.net>
Date:	Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:38:23 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To:	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, dccp@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4][RFC]: coding convention for CCID-struct prefixes

Em Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 01:23:59PM +0200, Gerrit Renker escreveu:
> | After Arnaldo takes a look, I can add this as-is to net-next-2.6
> This should work, they have been compile/sparse-tested and apply cleanly on net-2.6.
> 
> I am waiting for the feedback also in order to rebuild the test tree; and have
> informed CCID-4 developers (CCID-4 subtree) about this.

On a first look I saw one inconsistency, while in ccid3 you do:

-	return scaled_div(w_init << 6, hctx->tx_rtt);
+	return scaled_div(w_init << 6, hc->tx_rtt);

in ccid2 you do:

-	struct ccid2_seq *seqp = hctx->ccid2hctx_seqh;
+	struct ccid2_seq *seqp = hctx->tx_seqh;

Since this change is about reducing the names by removing redundancy, I
think the ccid3 variant is better, i.e.: hc->tx_foo.

- Arnaldo
--
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