linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm] x86_64 UP needs smp_call_function

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:	Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:31:16 -0800
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, ak@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] x86_64 UP needs smp_call_function_single

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:11:40 -0800
> Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:00:00 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 17:45 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> No, I think this patch is right - the declaration of the CONFIG_SMP
>>>> smp_call_function_single() is in linux/smp.h so the !CONFIG_SMP
>>>> declaration
>>>> or definition should be there too.
>>>>
>>>> It's still buggy though.  It should disable local interrupts around
>>>> the
>>>> call to match the SMP version.  I'll fix that separately. 
>>> hm, didnt i send an updated patch for that already? See the patch below,
>>> from many days ago. I sent it after the tsc-sync-rewrite patch.
>> Hi Ingo,
>>
>> Has there been a patch for this one?  (UP again, not SMP)
>>
>> drivers/input/ff-memless.c:384: warning: implicit declaration of function 'local_bh_disable'
>> drivers/input/ff-memless.c:393: warning: implicit declaration of function 'local_bh_enable'
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ---
>> ~Randy
>> config:  http://oss.oracle.com/~rdunlap/configs/config-input-up-header
> 
> eww..  I guess linux/spinlock.h should really include linux/interrupt.h. 
> But interrupt.h includes stuff like sched.h which will want spinlock.h.
> 
> This, maybe?

Looks good.  I had already tried (and failed) adding interrupt.h to spinlock.h --
what a mess.

-- 
~Randy
-
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/