linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] asm-generic, x86: wrap atomic 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: <20170328075232.GA19590@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:52:32 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] asm-generic, x86: wrap atomic operations


* Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Are just utterly disgusting that turn perfectly readable code into an
> >> > unreadable, unmaintainable mess.
> >> >
> >> > You need to find some better, cleaner solution please, or convince me that no
> >> > such solution is possible. NAK for the time being.
> >>
> >> Well, I can just write all functions as is. Does it better confirm to kernel
> >> style?
> >
> > I think writing the prototypes out as-is, properly organized, beats any of these
> > macro based solutions.
> 
> You mean write out the prototypes, but use what for definitions? Macros again?

No, regular C code.

I don't see the point of generating all this code via CPP - it's certainly not 
making it more readable to me. I.e. this patch I commented on is a step backwards 
for readability.

I'd prefer repetition and a higher overall line count over complex CPP constructs.

Thanks,

	Ingo