linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this

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, 16 Oct 2013 15:09:13 +0000
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, akpm@...uxfoundation.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops

On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> So I didn't understand what was wrong with:
>
> #define __this_cpu_read(pcp) \
> 	(__this_cpu_preempt_check("read"), raw_this_cpu_read(pcp))
>
> And idem for all others. This is 1) shorter to write; and 2) makes it
> blindingly obvious that the implementations are actually the same.

Nothing wrong with that. It just increases the scope of this patch to
require modifications to arch code and I already have trouble enough
following through on all the issues that were raised so far.

--
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/