[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121017.021615.926368154563205088.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 02:16:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: steffen.klassert@...unet.com
Cc: nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: use ISO C standard for array in linux/xfrm.h
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 07:43:43 +0200
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 05:42:33PM +0200, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com wrote:
>> From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
>>
>> Use the ISO C standard compliant form instead of the gcc extension.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
>> ---
>> include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h | 10 +++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h b/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
>> index 28e493b..6a6a605 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
>> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct xfrm_sec_ctx {
>> __u8 ctx_alg;
>> __u16 ctx_len;
>> __u32 ctx_sid;
>> - char ctx_str[0];
>> + char ctx_str[];
>
> Hm, what's the benefit of such a change? The kernel source is full
> of these foo[0] type arrays. I don't see a reason to change this
> just for xfrm.
Agreed.
--
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