linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] Use macros instead of TASK

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:	Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:45:15 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	matthew@....cx, willy@...ux.intel.com,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@....hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] Use macros instead of TASK_ flags

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:24:55 -0400
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> wrote:

> Abstracting away direct uses of TASK_ flags allows us to change the
> definitions of the task flags more easily.
> 
> Also restructure do_wait() a little
>
> ...
>
> diff --git a/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c b/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c
> index 59169bf..c2ca724 100644
> --- a/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c
> +++ b/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c
> @@ -2631,7 +2631,7 @@ pfm_task_incompatible(pfm_context_t *ctx, struct task_struct *task)
>  	 */
>  	if (task == current) return 0;
>  
> -	if ((task->state != TASK_STOPPED) && (task->state != TASK_TRACED)) {
> +	if (!is_task_stopped_or_traced(task)) {
>  		DPRINT(("cannot attach to non-stopped task [%d] state=%ld\n", task_pid_nr(task), task->state));
>  		return -EBUSY;
>  	}
> @@ -4792,7 +4792,7 @@ recheck:
>  	 * the task must be stopped.
>  	 */
>  	if (PFM_CMD_STOPPED(cmd)) {
> -		if ((task->state != TASK_STOPPED) && (task->state != TASK_TRACED)) {
> +		if (!is_task_stopped_or_traced(task)) {
>  			DPRINT(("[%d] task not in stopped state\n", task_pid_nr(task)));
>  			return -EBUSY;
>  		}

I have dropped this hunk because the file which it is patching is removed
by the (newly-added-to-mm) git-perfmon.patch.  I can't immediately find any
corresponding code which was readded in a different place by git-perfmon so
it looks like this code was simply zapped.

Of course, if git-perfmon doesn't merge in 2.6.25 then I'll end up merging
your patch but accidentally leaving 2.6.25's arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c
unpatched.  It looks like that'll be non-fatal.

This isn't going to go very well and I might end up having to drop this
whole patch series and ask for a refactored one.  We'll see.

-
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/