[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fix memory corruption from misinterpreted bad_inode_ops return values
Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:42:47 -0600 Eric Sandeen <> wrote:
>> So here's the first stab at fixing it. I'm sure there are style points
>> to be hashed out. Putting all the functions as static inlines in a header
>> was just to avoid hundreds of lines of simple function declarations before
>> we get to the meat of bad_inode.c, but it's probably technically wrong to
>> put it in a header. Also if putting a copyright on that trivial header file
>> is going overboard, just let me know. Or if anyone has a less verbose
>> but still correct way to address this problem, I'm all ears.
> Since the only uses of these functions is to take their addresses, the
> inline gains you nothing

Hm, yes of course... my fingers just automatically type "static inline"
in header files I guess. :)

> and since the only uses are in the one file, you
> should just define them in that file.

Ok, will do. That seems to be the consensus.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-01-04 00:25    [W:0.069 / U:0.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site