linux-kernel - Re: [ARM] Fix hard_smp_processor

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:	Tue, 15 May 2007 18:09:19 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <fernando@....ntt.co.jp>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [ARM] Fix hard_smp_processor_id compile error

On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 09:19:07AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:18:50AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > "Remove hardcoding of hard_smp_processor_id on UP systems",
> > 2f4dfe206a2fc07099dfad77a8ea2f4b4ae2140f in Linus' tree, moved
> > the definition of hard_smp_processor_id linux/smp.h to asm/smp.h
> > for UP systems. This causes a regression on ARM as the definition
> > was not added to asm-arm/smp.h.
> > 
> > Cc: Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <fernando@....ntt.co.jp>
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
> 
> I took an alternative approach - since Integrator never had the complete
> SMP support merged, I ripped it out of that platform.  Whether realview
> suffers from the same thing or not I'm not sure - uniprocessor realview
> is not something covered by the ARM default configuration files, and
> therefore kautobuild won't check that configuration.

I can take a look into this. Is there a tree other than Linus'
I should be working with?

> However, the things I find annoying about this is:
> 
> 1. asm/smp.h was _never_ included in ARM UP builds prior to this change.
> 2. we have linux/smp.h and the general rule is that if asm/foo.h and
>    linux/foo.h are present, linux/foo.h is included in preference to
>    asm/foo.h
> 
> Given the amount of janitors we now have looking at the kernel code,
> (2) is a big concern - it could mean a constant stream of patches
> trying to "fix" files including asm/smp.h.
> 
> I would suggest that if there is a desire to include asm/smp.h on UP
> builds, the inclusion of it by linux/smp.h is made unconditional.

I was thinking that myself, though I'm kind of fearful of
what kind of (additional) breakage it might cause.

-
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/