linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] RCU: Add TASK_RCU

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: <20110329213130.GK2261@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:31:30 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] RCU: Add TASK_RCU_OFFSET

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 02:14:23PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/28/2011 01:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 28.03.11 at 05:00, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> We can not include linux/sched.h in linux/rcupdate.h.
> >> If we access task's task_rcu_strut without linux/sched.h included,
> >> We will failed with compiling error.
> >>
> >> So we add TASK_RCU_OFFSET, which help us access
> >> task's task_rcu_strut without linux/sched.h included.
> >> Now, task_rcu_struct(), current_task_rcu_struct(), task_of_task_rcu() and
> >> rcu_copy_process() can be used anywhere without linux/sched.h included.
> > 
> > Aren't the offsets-generation methods meant for assembly
> > consumption only? Header dependency problems normally can
> > be solved by splitting headers into a type declaration one and
> > a second one carrying inline function implementations. Is that
> > indeed completely impossible here?
> 
> I have to say that if we have to use hardcoded offsets in C then we have
> bigger problems.

In this case, the offsets are mechanically generated from the structure
definitions.

Or am I missing your point?

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/