linux-kernel - Re: [RFC local_t removal V1 1/4] Add add_local() and add_local

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]

Date:	Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:07:44 -0600 (CST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC local_t removal V1 1/4] Add add_local() and
 add_local_return()

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> The problem I see here is that with ~5-6 operations, we will end up
> having 20*5 = 100 headers only for this. Can we combine these in a
> single header file instead ? local.h wasn't bad in this respect.

We could actually keep local.h and just thin it out a bit. Get rid of the
local_t type and use long instead? Then make the local_inc/local_add work
on an arbitrary scalar like cmpxchg_local?

> Also, separating all these in sub-files will make it a bit difficult to
> pinpoint errors that would arise from using a bad combination of, e.g.
> generic add with a non-protected read or set.

Yes surely I dont want many files. I thought about adding

#define inc_local(x) add_local(x, 1)

etc to add-local.h

--
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/