linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 11/22] kthread: Better support freezable kthread workers

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:	Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:21:11 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/22] kthread: Better support freezable kthread
 workers

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:45:00PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> @@ -556,6 +556,7 @@ void __init_kthread_worker(struct kthread_worker *worker,
>  				const char *name,
>  				struct lock_class_key *key)
>  {
> +	worker->flags = 0;
>  	spin_lock_init(&worker->lock);
>  	lockdep_set_class_and_name(&worker->lock, key, name);
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&worker->work_list);

Maybe memset the thing and drop 0, NULL inits?

> @@ -638,7 +643,8 @@ repeat:
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kthread_worker_fn);
>  
>  static struct kthread_worker *
> -__create_kthread_worker(int cpu, const char namefmt[], va_list args)
> +__create_kthread_worker(unsigned int flags, int cpu,
> +			const char namefmt[], va_list args)

Wouldn't @cpu, @flags be less confusing?  You would end up with, (A,
B, C) and (B, C) instead of (A, B, C) and (A, C).

Thanks.

-- 
tejun