linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch 07/18] Trace clock core

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: <20081107181650.GI22134@Krystal>
Date:	Fri, 7 Nov 2008 13:16:50 -0500
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nicolas Pitre <nico@....org>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	paulus@...ba.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 07/18] Trace clock core

* Andrew Morton (akpm@...ux-foundation.org) wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:12:38 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> 
> > * Andrew Morton (akpm@...ux-foundation.org) wrote:
> > > On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 01:16:43 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > Is there something we should be fixing in m68k?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, but I fear it's going to go deep into include hell :-(
> > > 
> > > Oh, OK.  I thought that the comment meant that m68k's on_each_cpu()
> > > behaves differently at runtime from other architectures (and wrongly).
> > > 
> > > If it's just some compile-time #include snafu then that's far less
> > > of a concern.
> > > 
> > 
> > Should I simply remove this comment then ?
> > 
> 
> umm, it could perhaps be clarified - mention that it's needed for an
> include order problem.
> 
> It's a bit odd.  Surely by the time we've included these:
> 
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
> +#include <linux/timer.h>
> +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
> +#include <linux/cpu.h>
> +#include <linux/timex.h>
> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> +#include <linux/trace-clock.h>
> +#include <linux/smp.h>
> 
> someone has already included sched.h, and the definition of
> _LINUX_SCHED_H will cause the later inclusion to not change anything?
> 

Maybe now it's ok, but in the past, sched.h was not included..
surprisingly.

I'll just write a clearer comment.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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/