[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240430091833.GD40213@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:18:33 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Prefer struct_size over open
coded arithmetic
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 10:18:03AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Peter and Ingo, you seem to traditionally take these changes (via -tip)?
> Can you please pick this up?
I have been explicitly not taking these things for perf and sched for a
while now. As I wrote in that other mail, I detest struct_size(), it
obfuscates code for no real benefit afaict.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists