linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] FRV: Fix the section attribute on UP DECLARE_PER

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.2.00.0904141103550.18124@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
cc:	tj@...nel.org, mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] FRV: Fix the section attribute on UP DECLARE_PER_CPU()



On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, David Howells wrote:
> 
> Agreed, it would be nice.  However, x86 requires it to be declared in the
> middle of asm/percpu.h (ie: in asm-generic/percpu.h). 

Hmm. Why not move it all above the '#include <asm/percpu.h>'?

Sure, then the odd architectures (read: ia64) that actually want to 
re-define things like PER_CPU_BASE_SECTION would have to now do

	#undef PER_CPU_BASE_SECTION
	#define PER_CPU_BASE_SECTION ".data.percpu"

but wouldn't that all actually be much CLEANER than the insane crap we do 
today?

But yeah, I didn't look at all the details. It _looked_ pretty 
straightforward to just move the DEFINE/DECLARE stuff up, but there may 
well be something subtle I'm missing.

			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/