On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 10:17:08AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 09:30:41AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 15:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:43:49AM +0200, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote: > > > > just out of curiosity: you are talking about increasing type safety, but > > > > at the same time replaces arguments to 'const void *data', which will accept > > > > everything. Is there something special which I don't understand? > > > > > > Nothing special - cast are potentially dangerous in general, and > > > function pointer cases are especially dangerous as there is no > > > verify the caller and callee signatures match at all. As generic > > > method call patterns need to have private data of some points they > > > need to have a void pointer somewhere - either in the signature or > > > as a pointer from a passed structure. For those the compiler at least > > > can do some basic sanity checking, and good static analysis tools can > > > even verify we get the proper object using whole program analysis. > > > > Strong ACK on all of this. > > Also very much in favor of these patches. Passes my usual tests too, by the way. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
