linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Scheduler: Removed first parameter from prepare_lock

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: <20171206235019.vvpx467magnuk25d@smtp.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2017 21:50:19 -0200
From:   Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Scheduler: Removed first parameter from
 prepare_lock_switch

> Yes, this is correct. However it had me looking at that code and pretty
> much everything else is completely wrong :-)
> 
> That is, its functionally correct (probably), but the function name is
> not descriptive of what the function does and the comment is just plain
> wrong.
> 
> Also, since both functions are only used in core.c we should probably
> move them there.

I'm not sure I understood it completely. What do you mean for wrong? Will 
CONFIG_SMP a meaningless check here?

How about moving 'prepare_lock_switch' code from sched.h to prepare_task_switch
in core.c?

And about the comment in 'prepare_lock_switch', I can replace it to
"Set on_cpu to 1 during the context switch will lock the processes on the cpu"
 
> Do you think you can fix all that as well?

Yeah absolutely, I just might need a few more comprehension on it.