linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce bootmem

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, 06 Mar 2009 16:11:36 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce bootmem_state

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> 
> The total number of states is always going to be subsys1 * subsys2 * 
> ..., but folding them all into one state variable only makes sense if we 
> have a well-defined set of states *and* transitions between them.  But 
> even then it implies that we have enough coupling between our subsystems 
> that we would even care what their aggregate state is, which is already 
> a bad idea.  If we keep the internal workings of our subsystems as 
> internal details, then having private state variables is the way to go.
> 
> The real problem with system_state is that it has a few broadly-defined 
> values, but no real explanation of what they mean, so they end up 
> getting used in inappropriate ways (like the virt_addr_valid() thing I 
> fixed yesterday).
> 

Obviously.

	-hpa

--
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/