linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v9 00/31] use lmb with x86

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: <4BB10FED.8040308@kernel.org>
Date:	Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:39:09 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	michael@...erman.id.au
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v9 00/31] use lmb with x86

On 03/29/2010 09:52 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 03/29/2010 05:22 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 19:42 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> the new lmb could be used to early_res in x86.
>>>
>>> Suggested by: David, Ben, and Thomas
>>>
>>> First three patches should go into 2.6.34
>>>
>>> -v6: change sequence as requested by Thomas
>>> -v7: seperate them to more patches
>>> -v8: add boundary checking to make sure not free partial page.
>>> -v9: use lmb_debug to control print out of reserve_lmb.
>>>      add e820 clean up, and e820 become __initdata
>>
>> Bike shedding perhaps, but can you maintain the naming convention, ie.
>> lmb_xxx() rather than xxx_lmb(). Neither is necessarily better, but all
>> the existing functions use the lmb_xxx() style.
>>
> 
> so you want
> 
> find_lmb_area ==> lmb_find_area
> reserve_lmb ==> lmb_reserve
> free_lmb ==> lmb_free
> 
> first one is ok, 
> 
> but next two we already have lmb_reserved and lmb_free without checking and increasing the size of region array.
> 
> should i use 
> lmb_reserve_with_check?
> 

I change 

find_lmb_area ==> lmb_find_area
reserve_lmb ==> lmb_reserve_area
free_lmb ==> lmb_free_area

does that look ok to you?

Thanks

Yinghai
--
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/