linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] x86: Move per cpu cpu_llc_shared_map to a field in struct cpuinfo

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, 22 Feb 2012 08:24:23 -0400
From:	Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] x86: Move per cpu cpu_llc_shared_map to a field in
 struct cpuinfo_x86

On 22 February 2012 05:27, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/21/2012 05:45 PM, Kevin Winchester wrote:
>> > Commit 141168c36cde ("x86: Simplify code by removing a !SMP #ifdefs from
>> > 'struct cpuinfo_x86'") caused the compilation error:
>> >
>> > mce_amd.c:(.cpuinit.text+0x4723): undefined reference to 'cpu_llc_shared_map'
>> >
>> > by removing an #ifdef CONFIG_SMP around a block containing a
>> > reference to cpu_llc_shared_map.  Rather than replace the
>> > #ifdef, move cpu_llc_shared_map to be a new cpumask_t field
>> > llc_shared_map in struct cpuinfo_x86 and adjust all
>> > references to cpu_llc_shared_map.
>> >
>>
>> I'm not comfortable with a patch this large after we are
>> already at -rc4.  Please send a minimal patch to fix the
>> failure for v3.3, and then a patch on top of that which we can
>> queue up with the rest of the patchset to for v3.4.
>
> I forgot about the v3.3 aspect of the series - yes, you are
> right, doing it like that would be preferred.
>
> It can all be in the same series, we'll sort apart the v3.3 and
> v3.4 bits.
>

That seems quite reasonable, I was not really thinking about v3.3 or
v3.4 at all when working on this.  Can I suggest, then, that you apply
Borislav's original patch:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/3/331

for now, and then I will rebase on top of that and remove the #ifdefs
as part of my first patch?

-- 
Kevin Winchester
--
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/