linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/52] Remove rcu

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: <20180830042006.GA23159@localhost>
Date:   Wed, 29 Aug 2018 21:20:07 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
        joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/52] Remove rcu_state pointers for
 v4.20/v5.0

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 09:10:17PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 08:22:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:00:26PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 15:38:30 -0700
> > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hello!
> > > > 
> > > > This commit does RCU-consolidation cleanups that get rid of pointers to
> > > > the sole remaining rcu_state structure:
> > > > 
> > > > 1-40:	Remove the "rsp" parameter from numerous functions, given that
> > > > 	the corresponding argument will always be &rcu_state.
> > > 
> > > Hmm, couldn't 1-40 have been made into a single patch?
> > 
> > They could.  I separated them to make finding the inevitable typos easier.
> > But at this point, it is easy enough to squash them together, though.
> 
> And please see below for what the resulting diff would look like.  Is
> this an improvement?

Honestly, as long as the result after each commit compiles, I prefer the
split version for ease of review.