linux-kernel - Re: + softirq-cleanup-preempt-check.patch added to -mm tree

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:38:33 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, jslaby@...e.cz, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + softirq-cleanup-preempt-check.patch added to -mm tree


* akpm@...ux-foundation.org <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> +static inline void softirq_preempt_check(struct softirq_action *h,
> +		int prev_count)

unnecessary linebreak.

> +{
> +	if (unlikely(prev_count != preempt_count())) {

should be something like:

	if (prev_count == preempt_count())
		return;

then the rest will look cleaner as well.

> +		printk(KERN_ERR "huh, entered softirq %td %s %pf with preempt_count %08x, exited with %08x?\n",

Could be pr_err().

> +			softirq_preempt_check(h, prev_count);

Please put 'debug' in the function name as i suggested - that way people 
will only read it if they are interested in debug checks.

softirq_debug_check() would be perfect. (which might even grow new 
checks in the future)

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/