linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 3/4] cgroups: allow a cgroup subsystem to reject a fork

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:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:42:06 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Cc:	lizefan@...wei.com, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	richard@....at,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/4] cgroups: allow a cgroup subsystem to reject a fork

On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 06:35:41AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> >> Do you also want me to completely drop the COUNT macro? IMO it makes
> >> the CGROUP_<TAG>_COUNT consolidation much nicer.
> >
> > What's wrong with simply having start and end tags?
> 
> Because you'd have to write (CGROUP_TAG_END - CGROUP_TAG_START) every
> time? It's a small addition and it makes referencing the range of a
> tagged section much easier.

Wouldn't loops look more like

	for (subsys = CGROUP_TAG_START; subsys < CGROUP_TAG_END; subsys++)

And even if not, just define a separate macro for the length.  It's
not like we're gonna have a lot of tags.

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/