netdev - Re: [PATCH] atomic: add atomic_inc_not_zero

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: <20101105112821.57f80481.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 5 Nov 2010 11:28:21 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] atomic: add atomic_inc_not_zero_hint()

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:20:24 +0100
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:

> Le vendredi 05 novembre 2010 __ 11:08 -0700, Andrew Morton a __crit :
> > On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:00:46 +0100
> > Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Le vendredi 05 novembre 2010 __ 10:20 -0700, Andrew Morton a __crit :
> > > 
> > > > It totally makes sense to add include/linu/atomic.h for common things. 
> > > > Perhaps there's already code in arch/*/include/asm/atomic.h which
> > > > should be hoisted up there.  But that can't reliably be done until a
> > > > million files have had their #includes switched :(
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Maybe including <linux/atomic.h> only from the end of various
> > > 
> > > arch/*/include/asm/atomic.h  ?
> > 
> > heh, I guess that would work.  It breaks the standard way of doing
> > these things (I think?) so let's not go there unless we have a need?
> > 
> > > In this case, I remove the include <asm/atomic.h> from linux/atomic.h
> > 
> > Oh.  Why?  I thought it was better the previous, standard way: thou
> > shalt henceforth include liunx/atomic.h, not asm/atomic.h.  And the
> > presence of linux/atomic.h will in fact trigger the checkpatch warning
> > telling people to use that when they try to use asm/atomic.h.
> 
> Hmm, if we want to move the common stuff from
> arch/*/include/asm/atomic.h to this new file (include/linux/atomic.h),
> then we would have to change hundred of 
> 
> #include <asm/atomic.h> 
> 
> to
> 
> #include <linux/atomic.h> 
> 
> This seems a big task to me ?
> 
> Or just make a whole tree replace ?
> 

But we haven't established that there _is_ duplicated code which needs
that treatment.

Scanning arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h, perhaps ATOMIC_INIT() is a
candidate.  But I'm not sure that it _should_ be hoisted up - if every
architecture happens to do it the same way then that's just a fluke.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html