linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: apic: convert BUG() to BUG

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: <20090912184929.GB4893@lenovo>
Date:	Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:49:29 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: apic: convert BUG() to BUG_ON()

[Daniel Walker - Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 11:20:41AM -0700]
| On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 22:05 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| 
| > 
| > Hi Daniel,
| > 
| > I believe having a changelog like
| > 
| > 	Use short form of "if() BUG()" sequence
| > 
| > would be better perhaps? Since "Coccinelle's BUG_ON semantic patch"
| > somehow doesn't describe why it's done.
| > 
| > Don't get me wrong please. It's trivial and seen from patch
| > itself _why_ it's done though changelog doesn't say the same.
| > 
| > Perhaps I'm too nagging :) Feel free to ignore me.
| 
| Not nagging, I wondered myself what the benefit was when I ran
| Coccinelle.
| 
| For one it condenses duplicate code (i.e. the if()). If the BUG_ON()
| macro gets updated with something new, all the users get the updates
| automatically. The other thing is your re-using potentially more
| advanced code that's inside the macro. In this case it's fairly trivial,
| 
| #define BUG_ON(condition) do { if (unlikely(condition)) BUG(); } while(0)
| 
| So we're getting the benefit on the new "unlikely" in the apic code.
| unlikely/likely calls will usually allow the compiler to create smaller,
| and or, more optimized code. 

I would not relay on "unlikely" much especially in apic code.
Though on some platforms this apic_id_registered returns plain 1
which could (didn't check myself) bring in some optimization
(to be fair -- I can't imagine what could be optimized
 in this particular case, especially since we may have locked
 operations on mem write).

So I consider it as code shrinking on source level only :)

| 
| So there are at least two benefits, and I don't see any downside to it.
| 
| Daniel
| 
	-- Cyrill
--
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/