linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] CPU isolation extensions

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, 7 Feb 2008 11:26:52 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] CPU isolation extensions

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:22:34 -0800 Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com> wrote:

> > - There are two separate and identical implementations of
> >   cpu_unusable(cpu).  Please do it once, in a header, preferably with C
> >   function, not macros.
> 
> Those are local versions that depend whether a feature is enabled or not.
> If CONFIG_CPUISOL_WORKQUEUE is disabled we want to cpu_unusable()
> in the workqueue.c to be a noop, and if it's enabled that macro resolve to 
> cpu_isolated(). 
> Same thing for the stopmachine.c. If CONFIG_CPUISOL_STOPMACHIN is disabled
> cpu_unusable() is a noop. 
> In other words cpu_isolated() is the one common macro that subsystem may
> want to stub out. 
> Do you see another way of doing this ?

ah, I missed that.  Yup, the implementation you have there looks OK.
--
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/