| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:21:31 +0800 From: "Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com> To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org> Cc: "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Code clean up for percpu_xxx() functions On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 22:11 +0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Alex,Shi wrote: > > > I thought again of this_cpu_xxx function, yes, some of them are better > > to be replaced by __this_cpu__xxx if preemption is safe on the scenario. > > But this change is better to be done in another patch. I did not > > finished all changed function check today. May try again in next week. > > What's you pinion of this? > > I think its good to have it all in a single patch. > I thought over your requirements, but it is difficult for me to know lots of fields in kernel, like for xen/kvm/network etc. So, to avoid introduce bugs here, could we do this blind changes, and then change each of fields and get owner's ack separately. Anyway if you still want to keep all changes in one patch, the patch may needs long time to wait for each of reviews/acks one by one. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists