linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hlist: drop the node parameter from iterators

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]

Date:	Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:09:49 -0500
From:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hlist: drop the node parameter from iterators

On 01/30/2013 06:47 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:08:30 -0500
> Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
>> Also, ping :)
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>  216 files changed, 1031 insertions(+), 1526 deletions(-)
> 
> Whimper.
> 
> I don't really see a sane way of avoiding a single huge atomic smash
> here.  Normally we'd use a multistep process:
> 
> 1: Create a new and differently named macro, say "sasha_is_a_pita()".
> 
> 2: Convert hlist_for_each_entry() to sasha_is_a_pita() in as many
>    sites as we can.
> 
> 3: Once we think all sites are converted, delete the now-unused
>    hlist_for_each_entry() definition.
> 
> Problem is, there just isn't any other identifier we can use here apart
> from hlist_for_each_entry().
> 
> I suppose we could add additional steps:
> 
> 4: Add hlist_for_each_entry(), which is identical to sasha_is_a_pita().
> 
> 5: Convert sasha_is_a_pita() to hlist_for_each_entry() in as many
>    sites as we can.
> 
> 6: Once we think all sites are converted, delete the now-unused
>    sasha_is_a_pita() definition.
> 
> But geeze.
> 
> 
> The alternative is to do the huge atomic smash immediately after the
> 3.9-rc1 release, when the amount of pending out-of-tree code is at a
> minimum.

I would accept a "it's not worth the effort" if you think it's not worth
the effort. I don't have a secret diabolic plan to make Linus and yourself
do a bunch of conflict merges because I like to see you suffer.

Regarding the multistep process, the downside there is that instead of
dealing with conflicts once you'll be dealing with them twice: once when
you move to the new macro, and once when you move back. If you think that's
preferable we can do that.

If not, should I send it over to you on -rc1?


Thanks,
Sasha

--
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/