linux-kernel - Re: set_cpus_allowed

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:22:27 +0100 (CET)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: set_cpus_allowed_ptr

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Would it make sense to clean up the set_cpus_allowed() vs
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() mess using the semantic patch tool?
> 
> I guess it would be three patches:
>  1) converting the current remaining set_cpus_allowed() users into
>     set_cpus_allowed_ptr().
>  2) remove set_cpus_allowed().
>  3) rename set_cpus_allowed_ptr() to set_cpus_allowed()

Perhaps a subtlety is that set_cpus_allowed is creating a new variable, 
whose address it sends to set_cpus_allowed_ptr?

julia
--
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/