linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cpumask: UP optimisation fixes follow-up

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: <YvNu0HvXkseAAr7D@yury-laptop>
Date:   Wed, 10 Aug 2022 01:39:44 -0700
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To:     Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cpumask: UP optimisation fixes follow-up

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 10:18:09AM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-08-09 at 21:55 -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 07:36:32PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote:
> > > As an older version of the UP optimisation fixes was merged, not all
> > > review feedback has been implemented.  These patches implement the
> > > feedback received on the merged version [1], and the respin [2], for
> > > changes related to include/linux/cpumask.h and lib/cpumask.c.
> > > 
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1656777646.git.sander@svanheule.net/
> > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1659077534.git.sander@svanheule.net/
> > > 
> > > Sander Vanheule (3):
> > >   cpumask: align signatures of UP implementations
> > >   lib/cpumask: add inline cpumask_next_wrap() for UP
> > >   lib/cpumask: drop always-true preprocessor guard
> > 
> > Acked-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
> > 
> > Applying at bitmap-for-next, after some testing.
> 
> Thanks! Any chance to get this in for 6.0? I would rather avoid building cpumask.o only on 6.0, but
> otherwise I don't think anything is functionally wrong with what is currently merged.

Functionally not, but something is still wrong, right? :)

I think -rc2 would be our best option for this, because this series is
a fix to v4, and because it will let this spend some time in -next.

Are you OK with this?

Thanks,
Yury