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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:41:36 -0600 From: Alex Chiang <achiang@...com> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mm: add numa node symlink for cpu devices in sysfs * David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Alex Chiang wrote: > > > You can discover which CPUs belong to a NUMA node by examining > > /sys/devices/system/node/$node/ > > > > You mean /sys/devices/system/node/node# ? Hm, in PCI land, I've been using $foo to indicate a variable in documentation I've written, but I can certainly use foo# if that's the preferred style. > > However, it's not convenient to go in the other direction, when looking at > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/$cpu/ > > > > .../cpu/cpu# ? > > > Yes, you can muck about in sysfs, but adding these symlinks makes > > life a lot more convenient. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Chiang <achiang@...com> > > --- > > > > drivers/base/node.c | 9 ++++++++- > > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c > > index ffda067..47a4997 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/node.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/node.c > > @@ -227,6 +227,7 @@ struct node node_devices[MAX_NUMNODES]; > > */ > > int register_cpu_under_node(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int nid) > > { > > + int ret; > > struct sys_device *obj; > > > > if (!node_online(nid)) > > @@ -236,9 +237,13 @@ int register_cpu_under_node(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int nid) > > if (!obj) > > return 0; > > > > - return sysfs_create_link(&node_devices[nid].sysdev.kobj, > > + ret = sysfs_create_link(&node_devices[nid].sysdev.kobj, > > &obj->kobj, > > kobject_name(&obj->kobj)); > > + > > + return sysfs_create_link(&obj->kobj, > > + &node_devices[nid].sysdev.kobj, > > + kobject_name(&node_devices[nid].sysdev.kobj)); > > } > > > > int unregister_cpu_under_node(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int nid) > > That can't be right, you're ignoring the return value of the first > sysfs_create_link(). This was a simple oversight. my intent was to return early if the first call to sysfs_create_link() failed. > The return values of register_cpu_under_node() and > unregister_cpu_under_node() are always ignored, so it would probably be > best to convert these to be void functions. That doesn't mean you can > simply ignore the result of the first sysfs_create_link(), though: the > second should probably be suppressed if the first returns an error. > I didn't want to change too much in the patch. Changing the function signature seems a bit overeager, but if you have strong feelings, I can do so. Thanks for the review. /ac -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists