linux-kernel - Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH] Cell SPU task notification

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:19:02 +0100
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Maynard Johnson <maynardj@...ibm.com>
Cc:	cbe-oss-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH] Cell SPU task notification

On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 09:56:12AM -0600, Maynard Johnson wrote:
> I haven't seen that the scheduler patch series got applied yet.  This 
> Cell spu task notification patch is a pre-req for OProfile development 
> to support profiling SPUs.   When the scheduler patch gets applied to a 
> kernel version that fits our needs for our OProfile development, I don't 
> see any problem in using the sched_flags field instead of notify_active.

I'll hopefull commit these patches this weekend, I'm at a conference
currently so not really able to do a lot of work.  If you need to make
more progress until than just apply the hunk that introduces sched_flags
before doing your patch.

> Yes, the yield() and the memory barriers were leftovers from an earlier 
> ill-conceived attempt at solving this problem.  They should have been 
> removed.  They're gone now.

Ok.

> I hesitated doing this since it would entail changing spu_switch_notify 
> from being static to non-static.  I'd like to get Arnd's opinion on this 
> question before going ahead and making such a change.

There is no difference in impact between marking a function non-static
and adding a trivial wrapper around it, only that the latter creates
more bloat.  So I don't think there's a good argument against this.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/