linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 1/3] genirq/affinity: replace managed with is_managed in irq_affinity

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: <87v8qdr9yf.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date:   Sat, 27 Aug 2022 16:18:48 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Xu Qiang <xuqiang36@...wei.com>
Cc:     <tglx@...utronix.de>, <frederic@...nel.org>,
        <peterz@...radead.org>, <nitesh@...hat.com>,
        <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, <douliyangs@...il.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/3] genirq/affinity: replace managed with is_managed in irq_affinity_desc

On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 02:13:49 +0100,
Xu Qiang <xuqiang36@...wei.com> wrote:
> 
> This submission is based on the following two considerations:
> 
> 1. The definition of is_managed field is misleading to assume
>    that it only uses 1 bit of memory, which is not the case;

You realise that a bitfield is not about the memory used, but the
number of significant bits, right? The memory it uses is the
compiler's business.

> 2. from the actual use of is_managed, it should be a Boolean type;

Why? What is wrong with the existing bitfield? Why renaming it?

>
> Fixes: c410abbbacb9 (“genirq/affinity: Add is_managed to struct irq_affinity_desc”)

I don't see any fix here, only some seemingly pointless bike-shedding.
If you have identified an actual issue, please spell it out for me,
because I cannot see it.

Thanks,

	M.


-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.