linux-kernel - [FIX REQUEST] x86: smp.h is totally confused about processor ID

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1247299234.2678.10.camel@ht.satnam>
Date:	Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:30:34 +0530
From:	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>
To:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [FIX REQUEST] x86: smp.h is totally confused about processor ID


Latest -tip tree shows
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=blob;f=arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h;h=6a84ed166aec136334a644cc4fbaa676368ae983;hb=HEAD :


27 DECLARE_PER_CPU(int, cpu_number);
28 
29 static inline struct cpumask *cpu_sibling_mask(int cpu)
30 {
31         return per_cpu(cpu_sibling_map, cpu);
32 }
33 
34 static inline struct cpumask *cpu_core_mask(int cpu)
35 {
36         return per_cpu(cpu_core_map, cpu);
37 }

it should be unsigned int cpu/cpu_number as it is non-negative.


47 
48 struct smp_ops {
49         void (*smp_prepare_boot_cpu)(void);
50         void (*smp_prepare_cpus)(unsigned max_cpus);
51         void (*smp_cpus_done)(unsigned max_cpus);
52 
53         void (*smp_send_stop)(void);
54         void (*smp_send_reschedule)(int cpu);
55 
56         int (*cpu_up)(unsigned cpu);
57         int (*cpu_disable)(void);
58         void (*cpu_die)(unsigned int cpu);
59         void (*play_dead)(void);
60 
61         void (*send_call_func_ipi)(const struct cpumask *mask);
62         void (*send_call_func_single_ipi)(int cpu);
63 };

In same structure it using int, unsigned and unsigned int cpu

It should be consistent either unsigned cpu or unsigned int cpu.

I think unsigned int cpu will be more better choice.

Similarly another instances in same file.

Thanks,
--
JSR




--
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/