linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] KVM: change API for requests to match bit operations

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: <20170217150120.GB28391@potion>
Date:   Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:01:20 +0100
From:   Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To:     Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] KVM: change API for requests to match bit operations

2017-02-17 10:30+0100, Cornelia Huck:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:04:45 +0100
> Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
>> kvm_make_request was a wrapper that added barriers to bit_set and
>> kvm_check_request did the same for bit_test and bit_check, but the name
>> was not very obvious and we were also lacking operations that cover
>> bit_test and bit_clear, which resulted in an inconsistent use.
>> 
>> The renaming:
>>   kvm_request_set            <- kvm_make_request
>>   kvm_request_test_and_clear <- kvm_check_request
>> 
>> Automated with coccinelle script:
>>   @@
>>   expression VCPU, REQ;
>>   @@
>>   -kvm_make_request(REQ, VCPU)
>>   +kvm_request_set(REQ, VCPU)
>> 
>>   @@
>>   expression VCPU, REQ;
>>   @@
>>   -kvm_check_request(REQ, VCPU)
>>   +kvm_request_test_and_clear(REQ, VCPU)
> 
> Forgot your s-o-b?

Oops, thanks.

>> +static inline void kvm_request_set(unsigned req, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> 
> Should we make req unsigned long as well, so that it matches the bit
> api even more?

>From the discussion that followed, I'll keep unsigned.