linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: declare cpuidle_ops __read

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, 10 Aug 2016 12:49:14 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
	daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: declare cpuidle_ops __read_mostly

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 5:54:03 PM CEST Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 16:49:57 +0800 Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> 
> > cpuidle_ops is initialized once by arm_cpuidle_read_ops() during
> > initialization, and thereafter is mostly read in arm_cpuidle_suspend()
> > 
> > The fact that it is mostly read and not written to makes it candidates
> > for __read_mostly declarations.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/kernel/cpuidle.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/kernel/cpuidle.c
> > index 7dccc96..762e0929 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/cpuidle.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/cpuidle.c
> > @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ extern struct of_cpuidle_method __cpuidle_method_of_table[];
> >  static const struct of_cpuidle_method __cpuidle_method_of_table_sentinel
> >       __used __section(__cpuidle_method_of_table_end);
> >  
> > -static struct cpuidle_ops cpuidle_ops[NR_CPUS];
> > +static struct cpuidle_ops cpuidle_ops[NR_CPUS] __read_mostly;
> 
> 
> oops, I just found that "arm: apply more __ro_after_init" from Kees
> marked cpuidle_ops as __ro_after_init, that also meet my need, so
> let's drop my patch.
> 
> 

Ok, just saw this reply and that matches up with what I just
wrote as well.

Thanks,

	Arnd