linux-kernel - Re: [my_cpu_ptr 1/5] Introduce my_cpu

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:08:51 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [my_cpu_ptr 1/5] Introduce my_cpu_ptr()

On Sun, 31 May 2009, Rusty Russell wrote:

> > Hmmm.. That would be a major change in semantics.
>
> It's exactly like get_cpu_var.  For better or worse, let's not invent YA new
> convention.

It hink we are doing that if we go the get_cpu_ptr line. this_cpu_ptr
starts from per_cpu_ptr() and its straightforward as a special case of
per_cpu_ptr.

> So that name question doesn't really have a clear convention answer: we could
> re-use cpu_local_inc() since I think we decided to kill local_t.  I slightly
> prefer it over "this_cpu_*" since we're not actually doing anything to the cpu
> itself, but I don't think anyone will get too confused and think that after
> this executes their CPU will be stepping 11. :)

local is loaded with meaning by glibc where it means thread local. The
variables here are cpu specific, not task specific.

--
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/