Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Take four on fixing OPT_SET_PTR issues

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:23:44AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> SET_PTR() may not be used, but are there places where SET_INT() is
>> abused with a cast-to-pointer for the same effect?  I didn't check,
>> but if there are such places, converting them to use SET_PTR() with
>> their existing cast removed may be a better way to go.
>
> Anyone doing that should be beaten with a clue stick.
>
> Fortunately, I grepped through and I did not see any cases. My clue
> stick remains untouched.

Yeah, I quickly did the same after sending the message out.

Perhaps instead of taking all these three patches, it may be a good
idea to just queue a single patch to remove both the feature and the
"string (unset)" bit from the test.

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]