netdev - Re: [PERCPU] Remove & in front of this_cpu

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, 03 Apr 2013 14:29:35 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	RongQing Li <roy.qing.li@...il.com>,
	Shan Wei <davidshan@...cent.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PERCPU] Remove & in front of this_cpu_ptr

On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 14:24 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:

> I don't know about this one.  I actually prefer the latter in that the
> pointer being passed into this_cpu_ptr() is something which is the
> actual percpu pointer either from variable declaration or the
> allocator.  Sure, they both are just different expressions of the same
> thing but the former requires an extra guarantee from percpu subsystem
> that the accessors would work for pointers which aren't the exact
> values defined or allocated.  I'd much prefer unfiying things toward
> the latter than the former.

I agree with you, I prefer &this_cpu_ptr(percpu_pointer)->field

The offset is added after getting the address of the (percpu) base
object.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html