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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 24 Nov 2017 16:18:56 -1000
From:   Linus Torvalds <>
To:     David Howells <>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:31 AM, David Howells <> wrote:
> It doesn't seem useful to have the init_task in a header file rather than
> in a normal source file.  We could consolidate init_task handling instead.
> Do want to do this?  If so, this is probably something we'd want to do at
> the end of the merge window, though not necessarily this one.
> Here's a series of patches that consolidate init_task handling:

Looks sane on the face of it, but I'll take a better look when I'm back home.

My one big WTF moment I already had was about your descriptions,
though. "Unroll"?

To quote the Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think
it means what you think it means".

Or at least it's a very unusual use of that word. Why doesn't the
explanation just say what it does: "move", and say from where to where
("from macro to definition" or something)?

Or "remove macro XYZ, expanding it in place", or something? To me,
"unroll" has a completely different meaning in computers.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists