linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] SLUB - define OO_ macro instead of hardcoded numbers

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]

Date:	Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:53:54 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] SLUB - define OO_ macro instead of hardcoded numbers

[Cyrill Gorcunov - Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:35:30PM +0400]
| [Christoph Lameter - Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:28:14AM -0700]
| > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| >
| >> Please check -- wouldn't it be better to use such a macro?
| >
| > Looks good. But could you rename OO_MAX to something different? There is  
| > already s->max which may cause confusion because s->max is the maximum  
| > number of objects in a slab. OO_MAX is the maximum mask?
| >
| 
| I supposed it would mean maximum object number inside page (ie quantity) which
| is happen to be the same value as OO_MASK. Maybe OO_MAX_OBJ?
| 
| 		- Cyrill -

Btw Christoph fix me if I'm wrong but this 65535 is directly related to
16 bit shift. If we change the first value without changing the second we
just break the SLUB I guess. I didn't read/understand SLUB code in details
so could be wrong.

		- 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/