[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjcXuZ91WkKv0fuBcm+w7y=y=fNzW9EXfnYYSCFvuyhdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 19:25:27 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: keescook@...omium.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ojeda@...nel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com, mingo@...hat.com,
will@...nel.org, longman@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, frederic@...nel.org, quic_neeraju@...cinc.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Lock and Pointer guards
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 1:06 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> struct obj *p __free(kfree) = kmalloc(...);
Yeah, the above actually looks really good to me - I like the naming
here, and the use looks very logical to me.
Of course, maybe once I see the patches that use this I go "uhh", but
at least for now I think you've hit on a rather legible syntax.
I'm still a bit unsure of the "no_free_ptr(p)" naming, but at least
it's pretty clear about what it does.
So my only worry is that it's not pretty and to the point like your
"__free(kfree)" syntax.
But it feels workable and not misleading, so unless somebody can come
up with a better name, I think it's ok.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists