On 8/20/2013 6:01 AM, Cong Wang wrote: > On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 14:42 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> Well, they certainly don't appear to add any value on their own. >> I also generally oppose doing clever things with data structures. > If you want to implement same thing for 5+ times,
Those 5+ implementations are already there, and already work. A 6th implementation to replace known working code is just churn unless it provides some additional value. Making the code "better" does not itself add value. > yes, it has no value > for you. Enjoy the following code in current tree: > > union nf_inet_addr; > union sctp_addr; > union vxlan_addr; (in my VXLAN IPv6 patches, search email archives) > struct br_mdb_entry::addr; > union inet_addr; (in netpoll.h) > > And may I tell you the last three are all from me? ;-) I do use and enjoy all of these implementations! Thank you for the fine implementations. In the end, if you're maintaining the code it's your call. I question change that does not have an obvious purpose because statistically every 10th change has a bug. Now that I know what the change is for I am fine with it. I like seeing reasons up front. > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > linux-security-module" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
