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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:26:39 +0100 From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Ville Syrjala <syrjala@....fi>, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...vis.unipv.it>, Michal Januszewski <spock@...too.org>, Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] param: use ops in struct kernel_param, rather than get and set fns directly At Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:43:39 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:48:12 pm Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:51:28 +1030, > > Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > > > This is more kernel-ish, saves some space, and also allows us to > > > expand the ops without breaking all the callers who are happy for the > > > new members to be NULL. > > > > > > The few places which defined their own param types are changed to the > > > new scheme. > > > > > > Since we're touching them anyway, we change get and set to take a > > > const struct kernel_param (which they were, and will be again). > > > > > > To reduce churn, module_param_call creates the ops struct so the callers > > > don't have to change (and casts the functions to reduce warnings). > > > The modern version which takes an ops struct is called module_param_cb. > > > > This is nice, as it also reduces the size of struct kernel_param, so > > each parameter uses less footprint (who cares, though?) :) > > > > But, just wondering whether we still need to export get/set > > functions. They can be called from ops now, so if any, it can be > > defined even as an inlinefunction or a macro. > > My thought too, so I tried that, but many are still used like so: > > module_param_call(foo, set_foo, param_get_uint, NULL, 0644); > > They can all be replaced in time with something like: > static int param_get_foo(char *buffer, const struct kernel_param *kp) > { > return param_ops_uint.get(buffer, kp); > } > > But it'll take a transition period. Fair enough. And, maybe these get/set should be defined as an ops explicitly so that it can be used for multiple parameters. But we can do cleanups later, of course :) Oh, in case you need, Reviewed-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> for all new patches. Thanks! Takashi -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists