linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/4] Josh and Ingo review feedback and bloatwatch RCU

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:	Wed, 23 Sep 2009 06:21:37 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
	dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/4] Josh and Ingo review feedback and
	bloatwatch RCU

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 08:45:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 15:24 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > This patch set applies two sets of review feedback from Josh Triplett and
> > checkpatch feedback from Ingo Molnar.  It also contains a forward-port
> > of Bloatwatch RCU, courtesy of David Howells.
> 
> It would be much easier to review if these patches had a changelog
> describing the problem they address :-)
> 
> The first one seems to do:
> 
> A)
>  - aggregate 'rsp->completed == rsp->gpnum' expressions into a
>    common function.
> 
>  - consistently use ACCESS_ONCE() in the above mentioned function
> 
> B)
>  - use DIV_ROUND_UP()
> 
> C)
>  - aggregate list_empty(&rnp->blocked_tasks[rnp->gpnum & 0x01])
> expressions into a common function.
> 
> 
> Could have been three patches, but ACK.

Good point, I will re-submit with the changelog and your Acked-by.

> The second patch seems to mostly add comments, but also moves code
> around and makes it static, which could have been split in two patches.
> 
> The purpose of the move code around bit could be a cleanup?

Yep.  The main point was that the old way had a bunch of random
forward declarations, while the new way has the plugins themselves
forward-declared, which (to me at least) makes a lot more sense.

> Looks to preserve the logic, but didn't go out on a limb to verify, ACK.

Again, will re-submit with your acked-by.

> The third and fourth do have an adequate changelog :-) 

;-)

Thank you for looking this over!!!

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/