linux-kernel - Re: percpu: Define this_cpu_cpumask_var_t

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1408212001100.19762@gentwo.org>
Date:	Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:03:25 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Motohiro Kosaki <Motohiro.Kosaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: percpu: Define this_cpu_cpumask_var_t_ptr

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:

> >
> > +#define this_cpu_cpumask_var_t_ptr(x) this_cpu_ptr(&x)
>
> Urgh, this is nasty but yeah I can't think of any other way around it
> either. :(
>
> Do we need the "_t" in the name tho?  Maybe we can shorten the name to
> this_cpumask_var_ptr(x)?  Also, wouldn't it be better to define it as
> a static inline function so that the input type is explicit?

Its a pretty simple function (actually more a name substituion) so I
did not think it worth creating an inline function.

_t is there because I wanted to include the full "ugly" name of the
variable to make it similarly ugly. It is needed to make the clear
distinction to "struct cpumask *" which does not have these issues.


--
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/