linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] klist: implement KLIST_INIT() and DEFINE

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: <480DE215.2070803@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:03:17 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, oliver@...kum.org,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, zaitcev@...hat.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] klist: implement KLIST_INIT() and DEFINE_KLIST()

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 18:57 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> klist is missing static initializers and definition helper.  Add them.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
>> ---
>> I can't tell who's in charge of this code, so I'm including last two
>> people who made changes and Andrew :-) This will be used by later USB
>> mode switch support, so I'm cc'ing USB people too.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>  include/linux/klist.h |    8 ++++++++
>>  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/klist.h b/include/linux/klist.h
>> index 7407125..c6b697c 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/klist.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/klist.h
>> @@ -25,6 +25,14 @@ struct klist {
>>  	void			(*put)(struct klist_node *);
>>  };
>>  
>> +#define KLIST_INIT(_name, _get, _put)					\
>> +	{ .k_lock	= __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(klist.k_lock),		\
> 
> May I ask you make that: __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(_name.k_lock)
 >
> Otherwise we'll end up with multiple classes that have the same name.

These locks don't nest so being in the same class should be okay and I 
was following what (at least some of) other __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED users 
are doing.  If putting these locks into separate classes is the RTTD, sure.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/