linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] perf: Generalize task_function

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: <20151217150732.GG6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:07:32 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	vince@...ter.net, eranian@...gle.com, johannes@...solutions.net,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] perf: Generalize task_function_call()ers

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:25:14PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:

> That aside, why I brought it up in the first place is because the two
> functions are asymmetric: one is called with irqs disabled and the
> other -- with ctx::lock held (and not because I'm into bikeshedding or
> anything like that). Looking at the pair of them sets off my "that's not
> right" trigger and sends me to the event_function_call()
> implementation. So in that sense, prepending an extra underscore kind of
> made sense. Maybe __perf_remove_from_context_{on,off}()?

You are quite right, and I think I've found more problems because of
this. Let me prod at this some more.

--
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/