linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/12] making the kernel -Wshadow clean

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9a8748490607301303v47442d56i9a3038b2d9e43e90@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:03:37 +0200
From:	"Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
To:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	pj@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] making the kernel -Wshadow clean - fix mconf

On 30/07/06, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:17:18 +0200
> "Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > > (looks at
> > > lock_cpu_hotplug())
> > >
> > Hmm, I'll take a look at lock_cpu_hotplug() - can you provide
> > additional details?
> >
>
> eh.  We put the recursive-sem thing in there as a temp fix to cpufreq to
> get 2.6.something out the door, expressing fine intentions to fix it for
> real later on.  Then look what happened.  Don't go there.
>

Ok, that's probably way over my head, but I'll dig in none the less
and see what I can do to help. It'll probably land me in a world of
hurt, but I've taken flames before and I'm still here ;-)
Don't expect much, but I'll see if there's anything I can do at least.


> >
> > > That being said, no, we can't go and rename up().  Let us go through the
> > > patches one-at-a-time..
> > >
> > i figured as much. *But* won't you agree that up_sem() (or considering
> > the other locking function names, sem_up() would probably be better)
> > would be a much better name for a global like this one?
> >
> > How about a plan like this:
> > We introduce sem_up() and sem_down() wrapper functions now. They could
> > go into 2.6.19 for example - and also add a note to
> > feature-removal-schedule.txt that the old function names will be
> > removed in 1 year. Then in a few kernel versions - say 2.6.21 - we
> > deprecate the old names and add a big fac comment in the source as
> > well.
> > Wouldn't that be doable?   Or do we have to live with up()/down() forever?
>
> Well actually when struct mutex went in we decided to remove all
> non-counting uses of semaphores kernel-wide, migrating them to mutexes.

Makes sense.

> Then to remove all the arch-specific semaphore implementations and
> implement an arch-neutral version.  After that has been done would be an
> appropriate time to rename things.
>

Ok, that is (again) probably beyond me, but I'll still take a look at
it just for the hell of it.
If nothing else I can at least keep an eye out for when we reach the
point we want to be at and then submit renaming patches...  let's
see..


> But it never happened.  See "fine intentions", above ;)
>
Heh, The road to hell is paved with fine intentions ;-)

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
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/