linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 14/18] static_call: Add static_cond

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: <20200508161701.GD3344@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 18:17:01 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mhiramat@...nel.org, bristot@...hat.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...nel.org, namit@...are.com, hpa@...or.com, luto@...nel.org,
        ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/18] static_call: Add static_cond_call()

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 10:47:04AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> And if you're calling it
> 
>   DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL
> 
> then it seems like
> 
>   ARCH_DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL
> 
> would be the logical name rather than RETTRAMP?

But that looses the TRAMP, and ARCH_DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL_TRAMP so
damn long, then again, it's only 2 chars more than what I have now,
sure, lets do it.

> Still not crazy about static_cond_call(), though I think at least
> changing it to static_call_cond() would be better for namespacing
> reasons.

Done.