linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpumask: introduce new API, without changing anything

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: <200811072232.03323.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Fri, 7 Nov 2008 22:32:02 +1100
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpumask: introduce new API, without changing anything

On Friday 07 November 2008 19:52:29 Andrew Morton wrote:
> So I can happily compile and run
>
> 	cpumask_first("hello, world");
>
> with CONFIG_SMP=n?

Good point.  It was based on the existing "first_cpu", but it's not a practice
we should encourage.

Hmm, the implementation of these UP versions is wrong in corner cases, too. 
Obviously it doesn't currently matter the way they are used, but a nasty trap
for the future.

Here's the addition, I've queued it for linux-next (which will next come out
after the weekend).

diff -u b/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h
--- b/include/linux/cpumask.h	Fri Nov 07 00:15:12 2008 +1100
+++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h	Fri Nov 07 22:28:33 2008 +1100
@@ -564,12 +564,36 @@
 }
 
 #if NR_CPUS == 1
-/* Uniprocesor. */
-#define cpumask_first(src)		({ (void)(src); 0; })
-#define cpumask_next(n, src)		({ (void)(src); 1; })
-#define cpumask_next_zero(n, src)	({ (void)(src); 1; })
-#define cpumask_next_and(n, srcp, andp)	({ (void)(srcp), (void)(andp); 1; })
-#define cpumask_any_but(mask, cpu)	({ (void)(mask); (void)(cpu); 0; })
+/* Uniprocessor.  Assume all masks are "1". */
+static inline unsigned int cpumask_first(const struct cpumask *srcp)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+
+/* Valid inputs for n are -1 and 0. */
+static inline unsigned int cpumask_next(int n, const struct cpumask *srcp)
+{
+	return n+1;
+}
+
+static inline unsigned int cpumask_next_zero(int n, const struct cpumask *srcp)
+{
+	return n+1;
+}
+
+static inline unsigned int cpumask_next_and(int n,
+					    const struct cpumask *srcp,
+					    const struct cpumask *andp)
+{
+	return n+1;
+}
+
+/* cpu must be a valid cpu, ie 0, so there's no other choice. */
+static inline unsigned int cpumask_any_but(const struct cpumask *mask,
+					   unsigned int cpu)
+{
+	return 1;
+}
 
 #define for_each_cpu(cpu, mask)			\
 	for ((cpu) = 0; (cpu) < 1; (cpu)++, (void)mask)
diff -u b/lib/cpumask.c b/lib/cpumask.c
--- b/lib/cpumask.c	Fri Nov 07 00:15:12 2008 +1100
+++ b/lib/cpumask.c	Fri Nov 07 22:28:33 2008 +1100
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@
 {
 	unsigned int i;
 
+	cpumask_check(cpu);
 	for_each_cpu(i, mask)
 		if (i != cpu)
 			break;



--
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/