linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] drivers/base/memory.c: Don't store end_section

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: <e9e3a428-0b06-dda3-3171-c76286cee37b@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Aug 2019 08:48:06 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] drivers/base/memory.c: Don't store end_section_nr in
 memory blocks

On 31.07.19 22:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:22:13 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Each memory block spans the same amount of sections/pages/bytes. The size
>> is determined before the first memory block is created. No need to store
>> what we can easily calculate - and the calculations even look simpler now.
>>
>> While at it, fix the variable naming in register_mem_sect_under_node() -
>> we no longer talk about a single section.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/include/linux/memory.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/memory.h
>> @@ -40,6 +39,8 @@ int arch_get_memory_phys_device(unsigned long start_pfn);
>>  unsigned long memory_block_size_bytes(void);
>>  int set_memory_block_size_order(unsigned int order);
>>  
>> +#define PAGES_PER_MEMORY_BLOCK (memory_block_size_bytes() / PAGE_SIZE)
> 
> Please let's not hide function calls inside macros which look like
> compile-time constants!  Adding "()" to the macro would be a bit
> better.  Making it a regular old inline C function would be better
> still.  But I'd suggest just open-coding this at the macro's single
> callsite.
> 

Sure, makes sense. Thanks!

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb