linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf tests: Add arch tests

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]

Message-ID: <20150912110355.GG2796@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date:	Sat, 12 Sep 2015 12:03:55 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Kanaka Juvva <kanaka.d.juvva@...el.com>,
	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...el.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf tests: Add arch tests

On Mon, 07 Sep, at 02:28:14PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 08:02:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
> >  };
> >  
> > +static struct test *tests[] = {
> > +	generic_tests,
> > +	arch_tests,
> > +};
> > +
> >  static bool perf_test__matches(struct test *test, int curr, int argc, const char *argv[])
> >  {
> >  	int i;
> > @@ -237,7 +229,11 @@ static int run_test(struct test *test)
> >  	return err;
> >  }
> >  
> > -#define for_each_test(t)	 for (t = &tests[0]; t->func; t++)
> > +static unsigned int ___j;		/* This is obviously not thread-safe */
> > +
> > +#define for_each_test(t)	 				\
> > +	for (___j = 0; ___j < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); ___j++)	\
> > +		for (t = &tests[___j][0]; t->func; t++)
> 
> why not have ____j on stack and pas it into for_each_test
> 
> for_each_test(j, t)                                     
> ...

Right, I made a conscious decision to not do that because I didn't
want the caller to have to care about providing an iterator variable.
It also makes the diff slightly bigger.

But I don't feel that strongly about it, so I'll make this change.

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/