linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] new kqueue API v.08

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: <20091219113609.GB9321@basil.fritz.box>
Date:	Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:36:09 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Roger Quadros <quadros.roger@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	Shargorodsky Atal <ext-atal.shargorodsky@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] new kqueue API v.08


I like the basic idea of a type safe FIFO.

> #define	DYNAMIC
> #ifdef DYNAMIC
> static DECLARE_KFIFO_PTR(test[1], int);
> #else
> static DECLARE_KFIFO(test[1], int, FIFO_SIZE);

The [1] looks weird.  Is that really needed and what does it mean?
The callers below don't seem to use it like an array.

> I know that this kind of macros are very sophisticated and not easy to
> maintain. But i have all tested and it works as expected. I analyzed the
> output of the compiler and for the x86 the code is as good as hand
> written assembler code.

Linux has a long tradition of complicated macros in headers, that shouldn't be a 
problem.

>  include/linux/kfifo.h | 1107 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  kernel/kfifo.c        |  768 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  2 files changed, 1174 insertions(+), 701 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -u -N -r -p mmotm.orig/include/linux/kfifo.h mmotm.new/include/linux/kfifo.h
> --- mmotm.orig/include/linux/kfifo.h	2009-12-19 00:23:12.510334931 +0100
> +++ mmotm.new/include/linux/kfifo.h	2009-12-19 00:23:04.375307229 +0100
> @@ -1,8 +1,7 @@
>  /*
> - * A generic kernel FIFO implementation.
> + * A generic kernel fifo implementation
>   *
>   * Copyright (C) 2009 Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
> - * Copyright (C) 2004 Stelian Pop <stelian@...ies.net>

You should probably keep the old copyright, even if not much code remains.

> +#ifdef __KERNEL__
>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
>  #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +#include <linux/stddef.h>
> +#include <linux/scatterlist.h>
> +#else
> +#include "helper.h"
> +#endif

Such ifdefs should not make it into submitted code. Better use more glue
in the test program.


... didn't review the whole thing at this point ...

-Andi
--
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/