linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/16] tools: Move gfp.h and slab.h from radix-tree to lib

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]

Date:   Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:00:28 +0100
From:   Karolina Drobnik <karolinadrobnik@...il.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mike.rapoport@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] tools: Move gfp.h and slab.h from radix-tree to
 lib

Hi Matthew,

Many thanks for your review.

On Thu, 2022-01-27 at 13:28 +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:21:19PM +0100, Karolina Drobnik wrote:
> > +#include <linux/types.h>
> > +
> > +#define __GFP_ZERO             0x8000u
> > +#define __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM   0x400000u
> > +
> > +#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT 26
> > +#define __GFP_BITS_MASK ((gfp_t)((1 << __GFP_BITS_SHIFT) - 1))
> > +
> > +#define __GFP_HIGH             0x20u
> > +#define __GFP_IO               0x40u
> > +#define __GFP_FS               0x80u
> > +#define __GFP_NOWARN           0x200u
> > +#define __GFP_ATOMIC           0x80000u
> > +#define __GFP_ACCOUNT          0x100000u
> > +#define __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM   0x2000000u
> 
> Why have you reordered the bits here?

I probably mixed them up when I tried to merge the stubs I did for
memblock and the files that were already there. I'll fix it in v2.

> > -#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT 26
> > -#define __GFP_BITS_MASK ((gfp_t)((1 << __GFP_BITS_SHIFT) - 1))
> > -
> > -#define __GFP_HIGH             0x20u
> > -#define __GFP_IO               0x40u
> > -#define __GFP_FS               0x80u
> > -#define __GFP_NOWARN           0x200u
> > -#define __GFP_ZERO             0x8000u
> > -#define __GFP_ATOMIC           0x80000u
> > -#define __GFP_ACCOUNT          0x100000u
> > -#define __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM   0x400000u
> > -#define __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM   0x2000000u
> 
> The original ordering makes more sense to me (but then it would; I
> did
> it)