netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/5] device property: helper macros for property entry creation

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:	Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:48:48 +0300
From:	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] device property: helper macros for property entry
 creation

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 05:02:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 16:39 +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > Marcos for easier creation of build-in property entries.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/property.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/property.h b/include/linux/property.h
> > index 76ebde9..204d899 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/property.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/property.h
> > @@ -152,6 +152,41 @@ struct property_entry {
> >  	} value;
> >  };
> >  
> > +#define PROP_ENTRY_U8(_name_, _val_) { \
> 
> PROP_ prefix is too generic.
> Maybe DEVPROP_ ? At least for the latter no records in the current
> sources.

I disagree with that. IMO this kind of macros should ideally resemble
the structure name they are used to fill (struct property_entry in
this case). And there are already definitions for DEV_PROP_* to
describe the types, so using something like DEVPROP_* here is just
confusing.

If PROP_ENTRY_* is really not good enough, we can change them
PROPERTY_ENTRY_*. But is PROP_ENTRY_* really so bad?

Rafael, what is your opinion?


Thanks,

-- 
heikki
--
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