linux-kernel - Re: [patch 09/10] Hugetlb common code update for System z.

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, 28 Mar 2008 17:03:38 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, haveblue@...ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 09/10] Hugetlb common code update for System z.


* Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> wrote:

> > >  include/asm-sh/hugetlb.h      |   28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  include/asm-sparc64/hugetlb.h |   30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  include/asm-x86/hugetlb.h     |   28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 
> > these seem largely duplicated - shouldnt there be an 
> > asm-generic/hugetlb.h instead, which asm/hugetlb.h could include to 
> > get default behavior? It would probably reduce the linecount of your 
> > patch as well.
> 
> Well the hugetlbfs primitives are architecture specific, aren't they? 
> Just like the other page table manipulation functions. I find the 
> usual method to use asm-generic/<xxx> and a lot of defines and #ifdefs 
> to pick up the correct definition from a generic header file rather 
> hard to read. In the end each arch that wants to use hugetlbfs has to 
> define each of the hugetlb primitives. Most of them are rather simple, 
> e.g. the x86 set_huge_pte_at is just a set_pte_at. One line to define 
> the primitive. Now we could have an #ifdef block around the default 
> definition that maps set_huge_pte_at to set_pte_at in asm-generic and 
> an ARCH_HAS_xx override for architecture that need to do something 
> more complicated. Somehow that was where we started .. I think the 
> best way to get rid of the ARCH_HAS_xxx fugliness is to let each 
> architecture define their primitives, even if it looks like code 
> duplication.

sorry, i misread your patch - it indeed looks cleaner with your patch 
applied.

	Ingo
--
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/