linux-kernel - Re: [mmotm and linux-next][PATCH] irq: enclose irq_desc_lock_class in CONFIG

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:	Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:58:52 +0900
From:	"KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [mmotm and linux-next][PATCH] irq: enclose irq_desc_lock_class in CONFIG_LOCKDEP

>> or, following #ifdef ?
>>
>> #if defined(CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ) || defined(CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS)
>>
>>  /*
>>  * lockdep: we want to handle all irq_desc locks as a single lock-class:
>>  */
>>  static struct lock_class_key irq_desc_lock_class;
>
> instead of increasing the #ifdef jungle, how about removing some? For
> example is this distinction:
>
>> >  #ifndef CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ
>
> really needed? We should use symmetric lock class annotations, regardless
> of how irq_desc[] is laid out.

it seems make much sense. I'll test your idea tommorow.

thanks.
--
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/