linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3 V7] workqueue: Allow modifying low level unbound workqueue cpumask

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:	Thu, 23 Apr 2015 01:02:55 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 V7] workqueue: Allow modifying low level unbound
 workqueue cpumask

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 03:39:35PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Generally looks good to me.  Some minor things below.
> 
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 07:26:37PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> > index cbccf5d..557612e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> > +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> > @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(wq_mayday_lock);	/* protects wq->maydays list */
> >  static LIST_HEAD(workqueues);		/* PR: list of all workqueues */
> >  static bool workqueue_freezing;		/* PL: have wqs started freezing? */
> >  
> > -static cpumask_var_t wq_unbound_global_cpumask;
> > +static cpumask_var_t wq_unbound_global_cpumask; /* PL: low level cpumask for all unbound wqs */
> 
> Are we set on this variable name?  What would we lose by naming it
> wq_unbound_cpumask or wq_cpu_possible_mask?

I like wq_unbound_cpumask personally. In fact I like to have "unbound"
inside to express what's concerned here. I like wq_cpu_possible_mask too
but unfortunately it suggests it's about all workqueues (including per cpu
ones) while it's not.
--
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/