netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 3/5] r8152: add MCU typed read/write functions

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:   Fri, 6 Nov 2020 03:01:22 +0000
From:   Hayes Wang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 3/5] r8152: add MCU typed read/write functions

Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:57 PM
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 10:54:18AM +0100, Marek Behún wrote:
> > I thought that static inline functions are preferred to macros, since
> > compiler warns better if they are used incorrectly...
> 
> Citation needed. Also, how do static inline functions wrapped in macros
> (i.e. your patch) stack up against your claim about better warnings?
> I guess ease of maintainership should prevail here, and Hayes should
> have the final word. I don't really have any stake here.

I agree with Vladimir Oltean.

I prefer to the way of easy maintaining.
I don't understand the advantage which you discuss.
However, if I am not familiar with the code, this patch
would let me take more time to find out the declarations
of these functions. This make it harder to trace the code.

Best Regards,
Hayes