linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for June 13 (XEN)

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: <20080616193057.GA20851@kernel.dk>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:30:57 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for June 13 (XEN)

On Sun, Jun 15 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 13 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >  
> >>Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >>    
> >>>next-20080613 on x86_32 has lots of xen build errors like this:
> >>>
> >>>linux-next-20080613/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c: In function 'drop_mm_ref':
> >>>linux-next-20080613/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c:759: error: implicit declaration 
> >>>of function 'xen_smp_call_function_mask'
> >>>make[2]: *** [arch/x86/xen/mmu.o] Error 1
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>      
> >>Ooh, first time I've seen that.  Sounds like Jens' patches are missing 
> >>the appropriate update there (though it's certainly had it in the past).
> >>    
> >
> >Hmm, will this work or do we need to force xen smp_ops for this one? I
> >wonder if this is new code and was missed, or what happened in this
> >case.
> >  
> 
> Yes, using smp_call_function_mask is perfectly OK.  The old code was 
> just a micro-optimisation.  I'm pretty sure this chunk was in one of 
> your patchsets (or perhaps I sent it to you at some point).

Hmm yes, not sure myself to be honest, but I think you are right.

> >diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c b/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c
> >index 3525ef5..8baef77 100644
> >--- a/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c
> >+++ b/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c
> >@@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ static void drop_mm_ref(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	if (!cpus_empty(mask))
> >-		xen_smp_call_function_mask(mask, drop_other_mm_ref, mm, 1);
> >+		smp_call_function_mask(mask, drop_other_mm_ref, mm, 1);
> > }
> > #else
> > static void drop_mm_ref(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >
> >  
> 
> Acked-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>

Thanks, I just folded it in with the existing patch to avoid breakage.
That one doesn't have an ack from you though, so if you have done a full
review of the x86 bits, I'd appreciate an ack on those from you :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/