linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] remove implicit slab.h inclusion from percpu.h

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:	Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:33:18 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] remove implicit slab.h inclusion from percpu.h

Hello,

On 03/12/2010 02:48 AM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> So, what do you guys think?  Probably-the-right-thing-to-do >544 file
>> patch or somewhat-ugly-but-let's-worry-about-it-tommorrow two file
>> patch?
> 
> You can include slab.h only for UP case.
> 
> Since everyone tests on allmodconfig which has SMP=y, configuration
> will be more strict wrt headers, and compile breakages amount
> negligible.

But that wouldn't change anything about having to do an oneshot huge
change, right?  And, if we're gonna do that anyway, I think it would
be better to remove the implicit dependency for UP case too so that
for example slab.h in this case doesn't have to do ifdef on CONFIG_SMP
before using percpu accessors.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/