[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201118181226.GK2672@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 12:12:26 -0600
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matt Mullins <mmullins@...x.us>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: violating function pointer signature
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:17:30PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I could change the stub from (void) to () if that would be better.
Don't? In a function definition they mean exactly the same thing (and
the kernel uses (void) everywhere else, which many people find clearer).
In a function declaration that is not part of a definition it means no
information about the arguments is specified, a quite different thing.
This is an obsolescent feature, too. Many many years from now it could
perhaps mean the same as (void), just like in C++, but not yet.
Segher
Powered by blists - more mailing lists