linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch 00/32] x86: Refactor the setup code to provide a base for embedded platforms

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: <20090822105726.GB30434@elte.hu>
Date:	Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:57:26 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 team <x86@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Alok N Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
	Pan Jacob jun <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 00/32] x86: Refactor the setup code to provide a
	base for embedded platforms

* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:

[...]
> The following patch series refactors the setup related x86_quirks 
> and the setup related paravirt hooks and puts them into an 
> extensible platform_setup infrastructure to provide a proper base 
> for adding the Moorestown modifications. As a side effect it also 
> unifies time_32/64.c and removes some leftovers of the pre 
> arch/x86 era.
>
> Note, this is not a replacement for paravirt_ops. It is just 
> replacing the setup related paravirt stuff so it can be reused for 
> other platforms though I have to say that it removes a fair amount 
> of obscurity which was introduced by paravirt & Co.

>  47 files changed, 622 insertions(+), 808 deletions(-)

Very nice!

One small detail, before we spread out these patches. While looking 
at the patches i noticed that at places our new x86 init namespace 
is very long:

> +     platform_setup.timers.setup_percpu_clockev = platform_setup_noop;
> +     platform_cpuhotplug_setup.setup_percpu_clockev = platform_setup_noop;
> +

I think we should shorten the name-space a bit - we'll use it in a 
_lot_ of places, so the shorter, the better and the easier to use. 

I'd suggest something like:

     x86_init.timers.init_percpu_clockev = x86_init_noop;
     x86_cpuhotplug_init.init_percpu_clockev = x86_init_noop;

( This also has the advantage that 'init' is the general term we use 
  for kernel structure initialization - 'setup' is a more 
  restrictive term we use related to bootloading, most of the time. )

An even shorter form would be to use 'x86' as a general template for 
platform details:

     x86.timers.init_percpu_ce = x86_init_noop;
     x86_cpuhotplug.init_percpu_ce = x86_init_noop;

this is even shorter, plus it allows us to put runtime details into 
this structure as well. Note that the fields themselves 
(init_percpu_clockev) already signal the 'init' property 
sufficiently. Plus 'ce' is an existing, well-known abbreviation for 
clockevents. (but 'clockev' would be good too - i might be pushing 
it)

What do you think?

	Ingo
--
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/