linux-kernel - Re: [this_cpu_xx 01/11] Introduce this_cpu_ptr() and generic this_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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4A31B8BF.30304@kernel.org>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:09:03 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx 01/11] Introduce this_cpu_ptr() and generic this_cpu_*
 operations

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
>> Looks good to me.  The only qualm I have is that I wish these macros
>> take pointer instead of the symbol name directly.  Currently it's not
> 
> They take the adress of the scalar. No symbol name is involved.
> 
>> possible due to the per_cpu__ appending thing but those should go with
>> Rusty's patches and the same ops should be useable for both static and
>> dynamic ones.  One problem which may occur with such scheme is when
> 
> They are usable for both as the following patches show.

Oops, sorry about that.  Got confused there.  :-)

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/