Re: Designated initializers, struct randomization and addressing?

As a tangential party, I am a bit curious: does the randomization plugin result in a compact structure? I ask because I know many/most programmers don't bother with it and so doing so ought to make the data more compact. On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >>

Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: ldlm: use designated initializers

> > "{ NULL }" is valid ISO C, but unfortunately "{}" is not. Just make the thing "static const" and don't use an initializer. ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel

Re: [PATCH 05/15] staging: lustre: ldlm: use accessor macros for l_flags

/27/16 15:20, James Simmons wrote: From: Bruce Korb <bruce.k...@gmail.com> Convert most of the ldlm lock's l_flags references from direct bit twiddling to using bit specific macros. A few multi-bit operations are left as an exercise for the reader. The changes are mostly in ldlm, bu