linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm: use modern cpumask primitives, no cpumask

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: <493D357C.4090308@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:55:56 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
CC:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	kvm-devel <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm: use modern cpumask primitives, no cpumask_t
 on stack

Mike Travis wrote:
>> Since we're in a get_cpu() here, how about a per_cpu static cpumask
>> instead? I don't mind the inefficient fallback, just the duplication.
>>     
>
> One thing to note is that when CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=n, then alloc_cpumask_var
> returns a constant 1 and the duplicate code is not even compiled.
>   

I'm a lot more concerned about source duplication than binary 
duplication.  Rusty's patches resulted in a net reduction in 
duplication, so perhaps I should keep quiet about it.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/