linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/7] epoll keyed wakeups - introduce key-aware wakeup macros

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: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901301950020.31741@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:50:56 -0800 (PST)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/7] epoll keyed wakeups - introduce key-aware wakeup
 macros

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> wrote:
> 
> > +#define wake_up(x)			kwake_up(x, NULL)
> > +#define wake_up_nr(x, nr)		kwake_up_nr(x, nr, NULL)
> > +#define wake_up_all(x)			kwake_up_all(x, NULL)
> > +#define wake_up_locked(x)		kwake_up_locked(x, NULL)
> > +
> > +#define wake_up_interruptible(x)	kwake_up_interruptible(x, NULL)
> > +#define wake_up_interruptible_nr(x, nr)	kwake_up_interruptible_nr(x, nr, NULL)
> > +#define wake_up_interruptible_all(x)	kwake_up_interruptible_all(x, NULL)
> > +#define wake_up_interruptible_sync(x)	kwake_up_interruptible_sync(x, NULL)
> 
> i like the patchset - nice work!
> 
> One minor worry i have: these wakeup calls are _very_ common in the 
> kernel, and this patch adds an extra parameter to it that is unused (NULL) 
> in 99% of the cases.
> 
> Would be nice to see the kernel image size increase due to this change 
> (which gives a good measure about how much of an issue this is).
> 
> If it's of any worrying level, it might make sense to keep the original 
> functions untouched, and introduce a second entry point that has one more 
> parameter. Ok?

Fine by me. Any preference for names?



- Davide


--
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/