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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1208869591.7115.263.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:06:31 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
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()

On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 22:03 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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.

Ah, they'll actually be in seprate classes all of the same name. So I
think it is cleaner to cause them to have separate names too.

see look_up_lock_class() in kernel/lockdep.c:

        /*
         * Static locks do not have their class-keys yet - for them the key
         * is the lock object itself:
         */
        if (unlikely(!lock->key))
                lock->key = (void *)lock;


--
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/