lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] user_hooks: New user hooks subsystem
From
Date
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 17:08 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 17:40 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > +++ b/kernel/user_hooks.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
> > +#include <linux/user_hooks.h>
> > +#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
> > +#include <linux/sched.h>
> > +#include <linux/percpu.h>
> > +
> > +struct user_hooks {
> > + bool hooking;
> > + bool in_user;
> > +};
>
> I really detest using bool in structures.. but that's just me. Also this
> really wants a comment as to wtf 'hooking' means. in_user I can just
> about guess.

I'm curious to what you have against bool in structures? Would you
prefer a:

struct user_hooks {
unsigned int hooking:1;
unsigned int in_user:1;
};

instead? I haven't checked, but I would hope that gcc would optimize the
struct into a single word.

But I could see that it can cause races as that would make modifying
hooking and in_user dependent on each other. That is, if one CPU updates
hooking as another CPU updates in_user, that could cause a
read-modify-write race. At least in this case the modification is only
done on local cpu variables.

-- Steve




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-30 18:01    [W:0.119 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site