Re: [PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection

2015-09-28 Thread Rusty Russell
Rasmus Villemoes writes: > On Sun, Sep 27 2015, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> But to be clear, it has outlived its usefulness, but it was not useless. >> >> In particular, there used to be a debug config where 'struct cpumask' >> wasn't defined, so we could catch people declaring 'struct cpumask' on

Re: [PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection

2015-09-28 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On Sun, Sep 27 2015, Rusty Russell wrote: > But to be clear, it has outlived its usefulness, but it was not useless. > > In particular, there used to be a debug config where 'struct cpumask' > wasn't defined, so we could catch people declaring 'struct cpumask' on > the stack (or passing by

Re: [PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection

2015-09-28 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On Sun, Sep 27 2015, Rusty Russell wrote: > But to be clear, it has outlived its usefulness, but it was not useless. > > In particular, there used to be a debug config where 'struct cpumask' > wasn't defined, so we could catch people declaring 'struct cpumask' on > the

Re: [PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection

2015-09-28 Thread Rusty Russell
Rasmus Villemoes writes: > On Sun, Sep 27 2015, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> But to be clear, it has outlived its usefulness, but it was not useless. >> >> In particular, there used to be a debug config where 'struct cpumask' >> wasn't defined, so we

Re: [PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection

2015-09-27 Thread Rusty Russell
Rasmus Villemoes writes: > Maybe third time's the charm... > > The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are > exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables > cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via > the exposed functions set_cpu_xyz.

Re: [PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection

2015-09-27 Thread Rusty Russell
Rasmus Villemoes writes: > Maybe third time's the charm... > > The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are > exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables > cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via > the exposed

[PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection

2015-09-25 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
Maybe third time's the charm... The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via the exposed functions set_cpu_xyz. There's quite a bit of code throughout the

[PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection

2015-09-25 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
Maybe third time's the charm... The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via the exposed functions set_cpu_xyz. There's quite a bit of code throughout the

Re: [PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection

2015-06-11 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On Thu, May 07 2015, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are > exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables > cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via > the exposed functions set_cpu_xyz. There's quite a bit

Re: [PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection

2015-06-11 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On Thu, May 07 2015, Rasmus Villemoes li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk wrote: The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via the exposed functions set_cpu_xyz.

[PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection

2015-05-06 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via the exposed functions set_cpu_xyz. There's quite a bit of code throughout the kernel which iterates over or

[PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection

2015-05-06 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via the exposed functions set_cpu_xyz. There's quite a bit of code throughout the kernel which iterates over or