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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:37:35 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.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

Hello,

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:33:28PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Ok I tried to change it to an inline function. The problem is the
> cpumask.h is included very early. this_cpu ops require functionality
> that is not available at that point. I think it cannot be more than a
> macro unless we define it elsewhere.

Ugh.... include hell. :( Does putting the accessors in percpu.h make
any difference?  Given the tricky nature of cpumask_var_t, I think
type checking can be pretty useful.

> Regarding naming:
> 
> this_cpu_ptr_cpumask_var()
> 
> is ok?

Wouldn't this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr() be a bit more natural?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/