linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] Make for_each_node

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:	Mon, 12 May 2008 14:04:56 +0200
From:	"Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
To:	"Mike Travis" <travis@....com>, "Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@...lshack.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Make for_each_node_mask out-of-line

On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:01:04 -0500, "Paul Jackson" <pj@....com> said:
> Alexander wrote:
> > Sure. This patch introduces lib/nodemask.c, but I'm not quite sure
> > if building it should depend on CONFIG_SMP or something else (NUMA?).
> > When is MAX_NUMNODES 1?
> 
> Well ... I'm pretty sure it made sense to depend on SMP, back when
> it was first added.  However that might have changed.  I recall
> vaguely that there has been discussion of this CONFIG_SMP dependency
> every year or so, but I don't have the time right now to dig through
> the archives and code to figure it out.
> 
> So ... offhand ... good questions, but I don't have answers.
> 
> > I'ld be happy to take a stab at aligning the cpumask and nodemask
> > code even more by uninlining some more functions and using stubs
> > for the MAX_NUMNODES=1 case.
> 
> That could be good ... though could you co-ordinate with Mike Travis
> first, to minimize the risks of merge conflicts with what he's doing?

I believe the x86#testing tree includes Mike's work? The two patches
in this thread apply fine to current x86#testing.

> You kernel text space saving in the first patch seemed worth going
> ahead with even if it did conflict a little, and I liked the matching
> nodemask patch, just to keep things in sync.  Other nodemask cleanup
> is a little lower priority in my book, so should make a modest effort
> to co-ordinate with more critical patches, to minimize conflict.

Thanks for your guidance.

Greetings,
    Alexander

> -- 
>                   I won't rest till it's the best ...
>                   Programmer, Linux Scalability
>                   Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.940.382.4214
-- 
  Alexander van Heukelum
  heukelum@...tmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
                          or over the web

--
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/