linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] x86: io-apic - convert DO

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080908144242.GA7278@lenovo>
Date:	Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:42:42 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: io-apic - convert DO_ACTION macro into function

[Ingo Molnar - Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 04:33:35PM +0200]
| 
| * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
| 
| > Convert DO_ACTION macro into more obvious io_apic_modify_irq
| > function with callers
| > ---
| > 
| >  I found it more readable then original was. Especialy we could grep 
| > the callers in normal way. It's just an attempt - free to drop this 
| > patch. I hope I don't messed with all these masks :) So the question 
| > is rather NOT about details but idea in general.
| 
| yeah - getting rid of such macros is a very good idea in general.
| 
| >  io_apic.c |  102 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
| >  1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
| 
| that's non-trivial impact. Did the .o md5sum survive this transformation 
| just fine? (in theory gcc should generate the same code - but it doesnt 
| always do that across macro->inline function changes, so it's hard to 
| validate these kinds of changes.)
| 
| 	Ingo
| 

ok, then I continue to work on this. I think I better check assembly code
to remain the same (in general since for example new for(;;) form is
completely different - in old code is inspired by the macroses who
could change 'entry' variable in theory - but now it will not be possible
and not needed so we could use more 'eye-candy' for(;;) form). Thanks
for comments.

		- Cyrill -
--
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/