linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cputopology: Always define CPU topology information [4th try]

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: <20080605092831.a77d164d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 5 Jun 2008 09:28:31 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cputopology: Always define CPU topology information
 [4th try]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:08:30 +0100 Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com> wrote:

> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:44:56 +0100 Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Not all architectures and configurations define CPU topology information.
> > > This can result in an empty topology directory in sysfs, and requires
> > > in-kernel users to protect all uses with #ifdef - see
> > > <http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=120639033904472&w=2>.
> > > 
> > > The documentation of CPU topology specifies what the defaults should be
> > > if only partial information is available from the hardware.  So we can
> > > provide these defaults as a fallback.
> > > 
> > > This patch:
> > > 
> > > - Adds default definitions of the 4 topology macros to <linux/topology.h>
> > > - Changes drivers/base/topology.c to use the topology macros unconditionally
> > >   and to cope with definitions that aren't lvalues
> > > - Updates documentation accordingly
> > 
> > See, this is what I meant.  After your patch we have:
> [...]
> 
> Sorry, I don't know how that escaped me.  My changes to the show functions
> should be unnecessary - though I think that the two different implementations
> for lvalues and rvalues are a premature optimisation.

um, what does this mean.  Will you be sending an updated patch or should
I drop those two or...?

--
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/