linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] preempt/hardirq.h: Clarify PREEMPT

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: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1208141216120.32033@ionos>
Date:	Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:18:49 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] preempt/hardirq.h: Clarify PREEMPT_ACTIVE bit location

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:

> 
> By default, the PREEMPT_ACTIVE flag is bit 27, but different
> architectures can override that. Update the comment to reflect
> this fact.

Is there any sensible reason why architectures need to override that?
I can't find one.

If there is none, then we should just remove all the overrides from
the arch code instead. If there is a reason, then it should be
documented.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/