linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/6] epoll keyed wakeups v2 - introduce new *

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.1.10.0902031231110.23050@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date:	Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:34:50 -0800 (PST)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/6] epoll keyed wakeups v2 - introduce new *_poll()
 wakeup macros

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > 
> > > Actually reading the comments helps :) It triggers an include-hell, if you 
> > > make them inline. Since they're lockdep debug thingies, I think it's kinda 
> > > wasted turn them into non-inline real functions, so they'd better remain 
> > > macros IMO.
> > 
> > ho hum.  I think it'd be worth at least renaming the arguments to
> > something less daft, for readability reasons.
> 
> Also, maybe we can make it an out-of-line thing rather than an inline?
> 
> Why not just make it
> 
> 	extern void wake_up_nested[_poll](wait_queue_head_t *,
> 		[unsigned long pollflags, ] unsigned int nesting);
> 
> and then just move it out of a header file entirely by writing it as a 
> real function in some *.c file that only gets compiled with 
> DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC.
> 
> Hmm? No include hell.

There's another thing. Epoll is the *only* user of such thing. I could 
suck it in there if you prefer. wake_up_nested(), once 
wake_up_nested_poll() goes in, has no more users and IMO can go.
Otherwise yes, we could define:

void wake_up_nested_poll(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned long events,
                         int subclass);

in wait.h, and define it under DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC in sched.c.
Let me know what you'd like best ...



- 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/