On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Can I suggest another way to make it less fragile?
> __attribute((...)) can be placed after 'struct'.
That avoids the actual bug, but it wouldn't have helped _find_ the
problem in the first place.
If somebody ever does the same thing, they'd hit the same issue. And
it's not just __randomize_struct, it's any of our other type markers.
We can say "don't do that", but if there is no automated checking,
it's still ripe to cause problems just because somebody didn't notice.
So I'd rather have something that causes a build failure when
something goes wrong, rather than silently accepting syntax that
wasn't intended.
Linus
--
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
