On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 17:58 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [PATCH] tools/toollog: Drop
> XTL_NEW_LOGGER()"):
> > On 19/01/16 17:36, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I think this macro is useful because if you wanted to write (say)
> > > xtl_logger_syslog, you would want to use it to
Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [PATCH] tools/toollog: Drop XTL_NEW_LOGGER()"):
> On 19/01/16 17:36, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I think this macro is useful because if you wanted to write (say)
> > xtl_logger_syslog, you would want to use it to help you with some
> > boilerplate.
>
> WTF? Even documented,
On 19/01/16 17:36, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [PATCH] tools/toollog: Drop XTL_NEW_LOGGER()"):
>> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [PATCH] tools/toollog: Drop XTL_NEW_LOGGER()"):
>>> The underlying issue with all of these is the _undocumented_ nature of the
>>> assumptions, which is cert
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [PATCH] tools/toollog: Drop XTL_NEW_LOGGER()"):
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [PATCH] tools/toollog: Drop XTL_NEW_LOGGER()"):
> > The underlying issue with all of these is the _undocumented_ nature of the
> > assumptions, which is certainly a bug, however those assumptions ar
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [PATCH] tools/toollog: Drop XTL_NEW_LOGGER()"):
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [PATCH] tools/toollog: Drop XTL_NEW_LOGGER()"):
> > > If vtable isn't the first element in the structure, it follows a wild
> > > pointer on error.
>
> This could be fixed.
Actually, no it couldn'
Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [PATCH] tools/toollog: Drop XTL_NEW_LOGGER()"):
> The underlying issue with all of these is the _undocumented_ nature of the
> assumptions, which is certainly a bug, however those assumptions are not in
> themselves "unreasonable" as was claimed.
Maybe I should submit a c
On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 16:40 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 19/01/16 16:24, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 20:13 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > XTL_NEW_LOGGER() makes a number of unreasonable assumptions about the
> > > symbols
> > > visible in its scope,
> > It assumes that the
On 19/01/16 16:24, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 20:13 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> XTL_NEW_LOGGER() makes a number of unreasonable assumptions about the symbols
>> visible in its scope,
> It assumes that the function names to fill in the vtable and the type name
> are related, that
On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 20:13 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> XTL_NEW_LOGGER() makes a number of unreasonable assumptions about the symbols
> visible in its scope,
It assumes that the function names to fill in the vtable and the type name
are related, that hardly seems totally "unreasonable". What els
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 08:13:45PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> XTL_NEW_LOGGER() makes a number of unreasonable assumptions about the symbols
> visible in its scope, and as such is only usable by its sole caller.
>
> Remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
Acked-by: Wei Liu
_
10 matches
Mail list logo
