linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] core: fix build error when referencing arch specific structures

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:47:14 -0700
From:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, clameter@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] core: fix build error when referencing arch specific
 structures

Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:05 +0100 Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:
>> On Friday 07 September 2007 05:09, travis@....com wrote:
>>> Since the core kernel routines need to reference cpu_sibling_map,
>>> whether it be a static array or a per_cpu data variable, an access
>>> function has been defined.
>>>
>>> In addition, changes have been made to the ia64 and ppc64 arch's to
>>> move the cpu_sibling_map from a static cpumask_t array [NR_CPUS] to
>>> be per_cpu cpumask_t arrays.
>>>
>>> Note that I do not have the ability to build or test patch 3/3, the
>>> ppc64 changes.
>>>
>>> Patches are referenced against 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 .
>> It would be better if you could redo the patches with the original patches
>> reverted, not incremental changes. In the end we'll need a full patch set
>> with full changelog anyways, not a series of incremental fixes.
> 
> yup
>  
>> Also I guess some powerpc testers would be needed. Perhaps cc the
>> maintainers?
>>
> 
> yup
> 
> All architectures except sparc64 are now done - please have a shot at doing
> sparc64 as well.

Ok, will do.  I didn't realize there was only one more that used the SCHED_SMT
code.

> 
> I'd suggest that we not implement that cpu_sibling_map() macro and just
> open-code the per_cpu() everywhere.  So henceforth any architecture which
> implements CONFIG_SCHED_SMT must implement the per-cpu sibling map.

Yes, with only one more to do it's not that daunting. ;-)

> That's nice and simple, and avoids the unpleasant
> pretend-function-used-as-an-lvalue trick.  (Well OK, per_cpu() does
> that, but let's avoid resinning).

Yes, the per_cpu macro is quite the specimen. ;-)

Thanks!
Mike

-
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/