linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] x86, xsave: some code cleanups and reworks

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, 21 Jul 2010 09:32:35 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
CC:	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] x86, xsave: some code cleanups and reworks

On 07/20/2010 01:17 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> 
> well, not true, this id is being set in setup_per_cpu_areas()
> note the snippet
> 
> 		if (cpu == boot_cpu_id)
> 			switch_to_new_gdt(cpu);
> 
> but cycle of assignment is done over all possible cpus so
> smp_processor_id will be = 0 for BP but definitely it's
> confusing and better to check for BP via explicit cpu == boot_cpu_id
> I think. Though I might be missing something.
> 

I think the style (!smp_processor_id()) is already in use in other
places, but we should be consistent in style; if you want to introduce a
new style I certainly agree that (is_boot_cpu()) is pretty clear but it
should be introduced universally.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/