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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1897617.PYKUYFuaPT@leap> Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:52:20 +0200 From: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com> To: Alaa Mohamed <eng.alaamohamedsoliman.am@...il.com>, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr> Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>, outreachy@...ts.linux.dev, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ira.weiny@...el.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] intel: igb: igb_ethtool.c: Convert kmap() to kmap_local_page() On sabato 16 aprile 2022 16:09:58 CEST Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Apr 2022, Alaa Mohamed wrote: > > > > > On ١٦/٤/٢٠٢٢ ١٣:٣١, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Apr 2022, Alaa Mohamed wrote: > > > > > > > Convert kmap() to kmap_local_page() > > > > > > > > With kmap_local_page(), the mapping is per thread, CPU local and not > > > > globally visible. > > > It's not clearer. > > I mean this " fix kunmap_local path value to take address of the mapped page" > > be more clearer > > > This is a general statement about the function. You > > > need to explain why it is appropriate to use it here. Unless it is the > > > case that all calls to kmap should be converted to call kmap_local_page. > > It's required to convert all calls kmap to kmap_local_page. So, I don't what > > should the commit message be? > > If all calls should be changed then you can also say that. If all calls should be changed with no regards to the surrounding contexts and special situations, we can just make an automated s/kmap()/ kmap_local_page()/ or something else similar :) Thanks, Fabio M. De Francesco > > I thought that a previous commit on the outreachy list made some arguments > about how the affacted value was just allocated and thus could not yet be > shared. > > julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists