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: <4BB126F6.8020805@kernel.org>
Date:	Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:17:26 -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 03:10 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 09:52 -0700, 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.
> 
> That was the point of my other mail. We now have two lmb APIs, one which
> checks if the array will overflow and one which doesn't. That seems like
> a bad idea. Having one called lmb_free() and one called free_lmb() is
> definitely a bad idea, because it's completely non obvious which one
> caters for overflow.

I want to keep the affects to other lmb users to minium at first.

and we can merge those functions later.

or you insist on merging them in this patchset?

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/