linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce bootmem

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: <49B19FB4.40909@goop.org>
Date:	Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:12:04 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce bootmem_state

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>   
>> Impact: cleanup
>>
>> extend after_bootmem and after_init_bootmem to bootmem_state
>> and will have BEFORE_BOOTMEM, DURING_BOOTMEM, AFTER_BOOTMEM
>>
>>     
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to add these as system_state enumerations
> and use relational comparisons on them (< <= >= >)?

Please, no.  system_state should be deprecated; its hard enough to have 
a notion of some kind of system-wide state, but putting subsystem 
specific substates into it just makes things worse.

    J
--
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/