linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] unbreak alpha percpu

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.LFD.2.00.0904101118470.4583@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>
cc:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unbreak alpha percpu



On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote:
> 
> Actually, all of this has been discussed on lkml; here is the latest
> variant that makes everybody more or less happy, at least there are
> no objections from percpu folks and Martin (similar fix should work
> for s390 as well).

Is there any reason why this version of DEFINE_PER_CPU_SECTION wouldn't 
work on _any_ architecture? IOW, do we even need the #ifdef's and 
per-arch #define?

			Linus
--
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/