linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Code clean up for percpu

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: <1318428673.29699.13.camel@debian>
Date:	Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:11:13 +0800
From:	"Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
Cc:	"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Code clean up for percpu_xxx() functions

> > Is this a revised patch? I do not see a use of the __this_cpu_xx ops.
> 
> I just changed where you pointed as below at the patch line 146: 
> 
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>  #define __percpu_prefix                "%%"__stringify(__percpu_seg)":"
> -#define __my_cpu_offset                percpu_read(this_cpu_off)
> +#define __my_cpu_offset                __this_cpu_read(this_cpu_off)
> 
> I do not quite understand you here. Do you mean to change every possible
> this_cpu_xxx() to __this_cpu_xxx()? 

I thought again of this_cpu_xxx function, yes, some of them are better
to be replaced by __this_cpu__xxx if preemption is safe on the scenario.
But this change is better to be done in another patch. I did not
finished all changed function check today.  May try again in next week.
What's you pinion of this? 



--
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/