linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/13] locking/qspinlock: be less clever with the preprocessor

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: <YsRwJdjJqpXEFTnO@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jul 2022 19:08:53 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] locking/qspinlock: be less clever with the
 preprocessor

On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 12:38:12AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Stop qspinlock.c including itself and avoid most of the function
> renaming with the preprocessor.
> 
> This is mostly done by having the common slowpath code take a 'bool
> paravirt' argument and adjusting code based on that.

What does code-gen do? Is it clever enough to constant fold the lot?

Should we be using __always_inline to ensure the compiler doesn't decide
against inlining because $raisin and then emitting extra condtionals?