netdev - Re: [PERCPU] Remove & in front of this_cpu

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: <20130404142526.GG9425@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Thu, 4 Apr 2013 07:25:26 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	RongQing Li <roy.qing.li@...il.com>,
	Shan Wei <davidshan@...cent.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PERCPU] Remove & in front of this_cpu_ptr

On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:21:57PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> > Right, this is true, and we *do* wanna support this_cpu ops other than
> > this_cpu_ptr on per-cpu struct fields.  The usage is still somewhat
> > unusual tho.  Can we please add documentation in the comments too?
> 
> I posted a patch adding documentation yesterday and you took it.
> ???
> 
> Add comments where?

I was thinking above this_cpu_*() ops.  Let's make it as conspicious
as reasonably possible.  It's a similar problem with declaring per-cpu
arrays - there are a couple ways to do it and there's no way to
automatically reject the one which isn't preferred.  I don't know.
Maybe all we can do is periodic sweep through the source tree and fix
up the "wrong" ones.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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