linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/7] epoll keyed wakeups - introduce key-aware wakeup macros

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:	Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:57:37 -0800 (PST)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/7] epoll keyed wakeups - introduce key-aware wakeup
 macros

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > Would be nice to see the kernel image size increase due to this change 
> > > (which gives a good measure about how much of an issue this is).
> > 
> > Ingo, I don't think you have looked at that header file for a while.
> > 
> > It's already doing that, Davide just changed the names a bit:
> > 
> > 	#define wake_up_interruptible(x)        __wake_up(x, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, 1, NULL)
> > 
> > and the extra parameter is already there in the caller.
> 
> Yeah, indeed - i should have noticed the absense of new function 
> prototypes in the patch ... and in any case i shouldnt post at 4am ;)
> 
> > (Yeah, Davide did add it to __wake_up_locked and __wake_up_sync, but 
> > those are really not the common cases).
> > 
> > Sure, we can change those #define's to be actual functions (and perhaps 
> > not export the low-level __wake_up() functions at all), since it's true 
> > that it would probably shrink the kernel size, but that is really a 
> > totally independent issue from the whole epoll wakeups thing.
> 
> Yeah. Will have a look at that independently of Davide's patch.

The ones with an extra parameter are "sync" and "locked". The 
simple __wake_up() ones, already had the parameter.
So your idea would be to have __wake_up_locked_XXX and __wake_up_sync_XXX 
instead of adding an extra parameter, no?
If yes, what about XXX? "key"?



- Davide


--
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/