linux-kernel - Re: EMM: Fixup return value handling of emm

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]

Message-Id: <1207219246.8514.817.camel@twins>
Date:	Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:40:46 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>, Izik Eidus <izike@...ranet.com>,
	kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
	Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
	Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>, steiner@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	daniel.blueman@...drics.com, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: EMM: Fixup return value handling of emm_notify()

On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 14:33 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> > but anyway it's silly to be hardwired to such an interface that worst
> > of all requires switch statements instead of proper pointer to
> > functions and a fixed set of parameters and retval semantics for all
> > methods.
> 
> The EMM API with a single callback is the simplest approach at this point. 
> A common callback for all operations allows the driver to implement common 
> entry and exit code as seen in XPMem.

It seems to me that common code can be shared using functions? No need
to stuff everything into a single function. We have method vectors all
over the kernel, we could do a_ops as a single callback too, but we
dont.

FWIW I prefer separate methods.

> I guess we can complicate this more by switching to a different API or 
> adding additional emm_xxx() callback if need be but I really want to have 
> a strong case for why this would be needed. There is the danger of 
> adding frills with special callbacks in this and that situation that could 
> make the notifier complicated and specific to a certain usage scenario. 
> 
> Having this generic simple interface will hopefully avoid such things.
> 
> 

--
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/