linux-kernel - Re: [this_cpu_xx 07/11] xfs_icsb_modify_counters does not need "cpu" variable

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, 5 Jun 2009 15:36:36 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Olaf Weber <olaf@....com>, mingo@...e.hu,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx 07/11] xfs_icsb_modify_counters does not need "cpu"
 variable

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> Looks good to me.  While you're at it you might also remove the
> superflous cast of the this_cpu_ptr return value.

Ok.

> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
>
> Btw, any reason this_cpu_ptr doesn't do the preempt_disable itself
> and has something paired to reverse it?

Would break the symmetry with the atomic per cpu ops introduced in the
same patch. Putting preempt side effects and RMWs together is making
things a bit complicated.

Also if the caller manages the preempt explicity (like this piece of code)
then may be better to have separate statements for clarity.



--
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/