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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20071026203941.GA15427@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:39:41 +0400 From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, willy@...ux.intel.com, Stephane Eranian <eranian@....hp.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] Use macros instead of TASK_ flags On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:45:15AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. > > --- 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)) { ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think this is horrible. Are you going to add full blown static inline function for every combination of state tests? > 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists