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.2.11.1408261803500.15698@gentwo.org>
Date:	Tue, 26 Aug 2014 18:04:55 -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 Tue, 26 Aug 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:

> 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.

Then its going to be difficult to find. This is related to the
cpumark_var_t handling and should be defined close to where it is
introduced and discussed.

>
> > Regarding naming:
> >
> > this_cpu_ptr_cpumask_var()
> >
> > is ok?
>
> Wouldn't this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr() be a bit more natural?

Ok.

--
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/