linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: unify pmd_free() and __pmd_free

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: <20080731161750.GA26393@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:17:50 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: unify pmd_free() and __pmd_free_tlb()
	implementation


* Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com> wrote:

> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> I can second that.  See
> >> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/include-asm-generic-pgtable-nopmdh-macros-are-noxious-reason-435.patch
> >>
> >> Ingo cruelly ignored it.  Probably he's used to ignoring the comit
> >> storm which I send in his direction - I'll need to resend it sometime.
> >>
> >> I'd consider that patch to be partial - we should demacroize the
> >> surrounding similar functions too.  But that will require a bit more
> >> testing.
> > 
> > Its immediate neighbours should be easy enough (pmd_alloc_one, 
> > __pmd_free_tlb), but any of the ones involving pmd_t risk #include hell 
> > (though the earlier references to pud_t in inline functions suggest it 
> > will work).  And pmd_addr_end is just ugly.
> > 
> >     J
> > 
> 
> ok, let's start with the easiest: pmd_free() and __pmd_free_tlb().
> 
> Following another attempt to unify the implementations using inline 
> functions. It seems to build fine on x86 (pae / non-pae) and on 
> x86_64. This is an RFC patch right now, not for inclusion (just asking 
> if it could be a reasonable approach or not). And in any case this 
> would need more testing.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>
> ---
>  arch/sparc/include/asm/pgalloc_64.h |    1 +
>  include/asm-alpha/pgalloc.h         |    1 +
>  include/asm-arm/pgalloc.h           |    1 -
>  include/asm-frv/pgalloc.h           |    2 --
>  include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h |   19 +++++++++++++++++--
>  include/asm-ia64/pgalloc.h          |    1 +
>  include/asm-m32r/pgalloc.h          |    2 --
>  include/asm-m68k/motorola_pgalloc.h |    3 ++-
>  include/asm-m68k/sun3_pgalloc.h     |    7 -------
>  include/asm-mips/pgalloc.h          |   12 +-----------
>  include/asm-parisc/pgalloc.h        |    2 +-
>  include/asm-powerpc/pgalloc-32.h    |    2 --
>  include/asm-powerpc/pgalloc-64.h    |    1 +
>  include/asm-s390/pgalloc.h          |    1 -
>  include/asm-sh/pgalloc.h            |    8 --------
>  include/asm-um/pgalloc.h            |    1 +
>  include/asm-x86/pgalloc.h           |    2 ++
>  17 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)

the x86 bits look good to me in principle but touches a ton of 
architectures and deals with VM issues - the perfect candidate for -mm?

	Ingo
--
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/