linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: fix section mismatch in LAPIC initialization

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <4D22EB76020000780002A23D@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date:	Tue, 04 Jan 2011 08:42:14 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	<mingo@...e.hu>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix section mismatch in LAPIC initialization

>>> On 03.01.11 at 19:29, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 01/03/2011 07:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Doing things conditionally upon spm_processor_id() being zero is
>> generally a bad idea, as this means CPU 0 cannot be offlined and
>> brought back online later again. While there may be other places where
>> this is done, I think adding more of those should be avoided so that
>> some day SMP really becomes "symmetrical".
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
> 
> The description doesn't really match the subject line...

The subject, imo, doesn't need further explanation. The description
was meant to explain why the function gets broken up rather than
just fiddling with other (called) functions' annotations. Are you
suggesting to drop the description altogether?

Jan

--
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/