linux-kernel - Re: [this_cpu_xx 07/11] xfs_icsb_modify_counters does not need "cpu" variable

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: <20090605192206.GA23547@lst.de>
Date:	Fri, 5 Jun 2009 21:22:06 +0200
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	cl@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Olaf Weber <olaf@....com>,
	mingo@...e.hu, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx 07/11] xfs_icsb_modify_counters does not need "cpu" variable

On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 03:18:26PM -0400, cl@...ux-foundation.org wrote:
> The xfs_icsb_modify_counters() function no longer needs the cpu variable
> if we use this_cpu_ptr() and we can get rid of get/put_cpu().

Looks good to me.  While you're at it you might also remove the
superflous cast of the this_cpu_ptr return value.


Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>

Btw, any reason this_cpu_ptr doesn't do the preempt_disable itself
and has something paired to reverse it?

--
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/