linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 10/18] x86/intel_rdt: Build structures for each resource based on cache topology

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, 26 Oct 2016 23:18:38 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
cc:     "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Sai Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/18] x86/intel_rdt: Build structures for each resource
 based on cache topology

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 03:02:56PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > +	list_for_each(l, &r->domains) {
> > > +		d = list_entry(l, struct rdt_domain, list);
> > 
> > So above you converted to list_for_each_entry(). Is there a sensible
> > reason, aside of being sloppy, why is this still using list_for_each()?
> 
> We use list_for_each() because we want to get the list_head "l". The l
> is used to find the position that the new domain will be inserted.

Sorry. I completely missed that position information thingy. No change
required then.

> The following patch #10 is supposed to fix issues you pointed out above.
> 
> Is it good now?

Looks fine. 

Thanks,

	tglx