linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] LoongArch: Make cpumask_of_node() robust against NUMA_NO

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e5dbec93-8400-4e20-a6f6-b245765144f5@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 14:09:18 +0000
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
Cc: kernel@...0n.name, jiaxun.yang@...goat.com, tsbogend@...ha.franken.de,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, luto@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, arnd@...db.de, x86@...nel.org,
        loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        vulab@...as.ac.cn, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org,
        dakr@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] LoongArch: Make cpumask_of_node() robust against
 NUMA_NO_NODE

On 05/01/2026 12:54, Huacai Chen wrote:
> Hi, John,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 6:07 PM John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com> wrote:
>>
>> The arch definition of cpumask_of_node() cannot handle NUMA_NO_NODE - which
>> is a valid index - so add a check for this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/loongarch/include/asm/topology.h | 4 +++-
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/topology.h b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/topology.h
>> index f06e7ff25bb7c..9857e4c20023c 100644
>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/topology.h
>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/topology.h
>> @@ -12,7 +12,9 @@
>>
>>   extern cpumask_t cpus_on_node[];
>>
>> -#define cpumask_of_node(node)  (&cpus_on_node[node])
>> +#define cpumask_of_node(node)  ((node) == NUMA_NO_NODE ?       \
>> +                               cpu_all_mask :                  \
>> +                               &cpus_on_node[node])
> You can define it in one line, so does the MIPS version.
> 

ok, I can do it that way if you prefer. The reason I had it in flow was:
- a single line will overflow 80 characters, which some people still 
prefer not doing
- following example of other archs and general coding style to split 
macros functions across multiple lines.

Thanks,
John