linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] cpuset: convert cpuset_attach() to use cpumask_var

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, 05 Jan 2009 17:21:15 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] cpuset: convert cpuset_attach() to use cpumask_var_t

>>> OK, that works.
>>>
>>> Do we need to dynamically allocate cpus_attach?  Can we just do
>>>
>>> static cpumask_t cpus_attach;
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>> Yes, it's used by cpuset_attach() only, and cpuset_attach() is called with
>> cgroup_lock() held, so it won't happen that 2 threads access cpus_attach
>> concurrently.
> 
> You misunderstand my question.  I think.
> 
> Can we allocate cpus_attach at compile time?  Completely, not
> partially.  By doing
> 
> static cpumask_t cpus_attach;
> 
> instead of
> 
> static cpumask_var_t cpus_attach;
> ...
> 	alloc_cpumask_var(&cpus_attach, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> ?

Ah, I misunderstood. Yes a static cpumask_t works, but what Mike Travis and
Rusty is doing is to remove cpumask_t completely, and replace cpumask_t
with cpumask_var_t wherever possible.

--
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/