linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection

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: <87si5zf4il.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:	Mon, 28 Sep 2015 08:21:22 +0200
From:	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection

On Sun, Sep 27 2015, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:

> But to be clear, it has outlived its usefulness, but it was not useless.
>
> In particular, there used to be a debug config where 'struct cpumask'
> wasn't defined, so we could catch people declaring 'struct cpumask' on
> the stack (or passing by value).
>
> There was a plan to remove CONFIG_NR_CPUS (ie. having no compile-time
> cpu limit), but it seemed overkill and was abandoned.  But avoiding
> 'struct cpumask' (not struct cpumask *) in the core wherever possible
> was a step towards it.
>
> Hope that clarifies,

It does, thanks! Should some of that be edited into one of the
changelogs?

Rasmus
--
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/