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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0908231110480.1769@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:15:49 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >  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. )

Fair enough.
 
> 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 

We should have a separate struct for runtime details otherwise we need
to keep the full init stuff around forever instead of freeing
it. That's why I already have that separate cpuhotplug struct.

> (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)

Yes you do. Next you suggest to have x86_i.pcpu_ce :)
 
Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/