Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Feb 2012 13:28:23 +0400 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [patch cr 2/4] [RFC] syscalls, x86: Add __NR_kcmp syscall v7 |
| |
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:22:41AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:09:29 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > > > * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org> wrote: > > > > > > > + get_random_bytes(&cookies[i][j], > > > > > + sizeof(cookies[i][j])); > > > > > > > > ugly line break. > > > > > > > > > > Why? Looks pretty good to me. But sure I'll change it. > > > > It's ugly because it serves no purpose other than pacifying > > checkpatch and makes the code *uglier*. > > No it doesn't. For 80-col displays the code is *already wrapped*. And > that wrapping to column 0 is vastly worse than the above. > > If we want to increase the standard to (say) 96 cols then fine, I'd be > happy with that. But until we do that we should not create such a > gruesome mess for those who use 80 cols. > > > It's a disease. When checkpatch tells you "this line is too > > long" then consider it a code cleanliness warning! > > Well yes, if it can be fixed by other means then great. >
Guys, I simply made it as
static __init int kcmp_cookie_init(void) { int i, j;
for (i = 0; i < KCMP_TYPES; i++) { for (j = 0; j < 2; j++) get_random_bytes(&cookies[i][j], sizeof(long)); cookies[i][1] |= (~(~0UL >> 1) | 1); }
return 0; }
I thought in first place that sizeof(cookies[i][j]) would allow me to change type of cookies in one place (ie at declaration) but if cookies type will be changed -- the code will need careful review anway, so sizeof(long) will be enough I think.
On the other hands, maybe more clean variant will be
static __init int kcmp_cookie_init(void) { const int size = sizeof(cookies[0][0]); int i, j;
for (i = 0; i < KCMP_TYPES; i++) { for (j = 0; j < 2; j++) get_random_bytes(&cookies[i][j], size); cookies[i][1] |= (~(~0UL >> 1) | 1); }
return 0; }
Hm?
Cyrill
| |