linux-kernel - Re: [sched.h] 317419b91e: perf-sanity-tests.Parse_sched_tracepoints

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: <CALOAHbAyLQ-NkeyERjs=PbaRAC7Qf=BO4KeDWfMxcB2QCTOcRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 10:20:56 +0800
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        acme <acme@...nel.org>,
        kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
        0day robot <lkp@...el.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkp <lkp@...ts.01.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Qiang Zhang <qiang.zhang@...driver.com>,
        robdclark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
        christian <christian@...uner.io>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        bristot <bristot@...hat.com>,
        aubrey li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        yu c chen <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [sched.h] 317419b91e: perf-sanity-tests.Parse_sched_tracepoints_fields.fail

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 10:14 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 10:05:56 +0800
> Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'd say we need a TASK_COMM_LEN_V1 to use in all the old hard-coded
> > > places.
> > >
> >
> > Sure, it will be easy to grep then.
>
> Just because I'm picky about my bikeshed colors...
>
>
> Perhaps have it called TASK_COMM_LEN_16 ?
>
> The reason being, I have no idea what "V1" is. Version 1? What's that
> mean? And now TASK_COMM_LEN can be either 16 or 24. Perhaps we can have
> it be:
>
> #define TASK_COMM_LEN_16        16
> #define TASK_COMM_LEN_24        24
>
> if CONFIG_BASE_SMALL
> #define TASK_COMM_LEN                   TASK_COMM_LEN_16
> #else
> #define TASK_COMM_LEN                   TASK_COMM_LEN_24
> #endif
>
> or call it TASK_COMM_LEN_SMALL and TASK_COMM_LEN_LARGE
>
> ??
>
> It's still "grepable"
>

Good idea.

It seems TASK_COMM_LEN_16  and TASK_COMM_LEN_24 are more clear.
I will do it as you suggested.

-- 
Thanks
Yafang