sched: fix confusing PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS constant
Subsystems (3)
PATCH v2 1/3 sched: fix confusing PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS constant
From: Tetsuo Handa <[email protected]>
Commit 1d4457f99928 ("sched: move no_new_privs into new atomic flags") defined PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS as hexadecimal value, but it is confusing because it is used as bit number. Redefine it as decimal bit number.
Note this changes the bit position of PFA_NOW_NEW_PRIVS from 1 to 0.
--- include/linux/sched.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
include/linux/sched.h +1 -1
@@ -1957,7 +1957,7 @@ static inline void memalloc_noio_restore(unsigned int flags) }/* Per-process atomic flags. */ -#define PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS 0x00000001/* May not gain new privileges. */ +#define PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS 0/* May not gain new privileges. */ static inline bool task_no_new_privs (struct task_struct *p) {
Signature · 1 line
1.8.0.2
PATCH v2 2/3 sched: add a macro to define bitops for task atomic flags
This will simplify code when we add new flags.
v2:
- updated scripts/tags.sh, suggested by Peter
--- include/linux/sched.h | 20 +++++++++++--------- scripts/tags.sh | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
include/linux/sched.h +11 -9
@@ -1959,15 +1959,17 @@ static inline void memalloc_noio_restore(unsigned int flags)/* Per-process atomic flags. */ #define PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS 0/* May not gain new privileges. */ -static inline bool task_no_new_privs (struct task_struct *p) -{ -return test_bit (PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS , &p->atomic_flags); -} - -static inline void task_set_no_new_privs (struct task_struct *p) -{ -set_bit (PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS , &p->atomic_flags); -} +#define TASK_PFA_BITOPS (name, func) \ +static inline bool task_##func(struct task_struct *p) \ +{ return test_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); } \ + \ +static inline void task_set_##func(struct task_struct *p) \ +{ set_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); } \ + \ +static inline void task_clear_##func(struct task_struct *p) \ +{ clear_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); } + +TASK_PFA_BITOPS (NO_NEW_PRIVS , no_new_privs)/* * task->jobctl flags
scripts/tags.sh +6 -0
@@ -197,6 +197,9 @@ exuberant() --regex-c++='/SETPCGFLAG\(([^,)]*).*/SetPageCgroup\1/' \ --regex-c++='/CLEARPCGFLAG\(([^,)]*).*/ClearPageCgroup\1/' \ --regex-c++='/TESTCLEARPCGFLAG\(([^,)]*).*/TestClearPageCgroup\1/' \ + --regex-c++='/TASK_PFA_BITOPS\([^,]*,\s*([^)]*)\)/task_\1/' \ + --regex-c++='/TASK_PFA_BITOPS\([^,]*,\s*([^)]*)\)/task_set_\1/' \ + --regex-c++='/TASK_PFA_BITOPS\([^,]*,\s*([^)]*)\)/task_clear_\1/' \ --regex-c='/PCI_OP_READ\((\w*).*[1-4]\)/pci_bus_read_config_\1/' \ --regex-c='/PCI_OP_WRITE\((\w*).*[1-4]\)/pci_bus_write_config_\1/' \ --regex-c='/DEFINE_(MUTEX|SEMAPHORE|SPINLOCK)\((\w*)/\2/v/' \
@@ -260,6 +263,9 @@ emacs() --regex='/SETPCGFLAG\(([^,)]*).*/SetPageCgroup\1/' \ --regex='/CLEARPCGFLAG\(([^,)]*).*/ClearPageCgroup\1/' \ --regex='/TESTCLEARPCGFLAG\(([^,)]*).*/TestClearPageCgroup\1/' \ + --regex='/TASK_PFA_BITOPS\([^,]*,\s*([^)]*)\)/task_\1/' \ + --regex='/TASK_PFA_BITOPS\([^,]*,\s*([^)]*)\)/task_set_\1/' \ + --regex='/TASK_PFA_BITOPS\([^,]*,\s*([^)]*)\)/task_clear_\1/' \ --regex='/_PE(\([^,)]*\).*/PEVENT_ERRNO__\1/' \ --regex='/PCI_OP_READ(\([a-z]*[a-z]\).*[1-4])/pci_bus_read_config_\1/' \ --regex='/PCI_OP_WRITE(\([a-z]*[a-z]\).*[1-4])/pci_bus_write_config_\1/'\
Signature · 1 line
1.8.0.2
Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] sched: add a macro to define bitops for task atomic flags
Quoted 34 lines · Zefan Li
This will simplify code when we add new flags.
v2:
- updatedscripts/tags.sh, suggested by PeterCc Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>Cc Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>Cc Miao Xie <[email protected]>Cc Kees Cook <[email protected]>Cc Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel-JPay3/[email protected]>Signed-off-by Zefan Li <[email protected]>--- include/linux/sched.h | 20 +++++++++++--------- scripts/tags.sh | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)include/linux/sched.h +1
-9@@ -1959,15 +1959,17 @@ static inline void memalloc_noio_restore(unsigned int flags)/* Per-process atomic flags. */ #define PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS 0/* May not gain new privileges. */ -static inline bool task_no_new_privs (struct task_struct *p) -{ -return test_bit (PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS , &p->atomic_flags); -} - -static inline void task_set_no_new_privs (struct task_struct *p) -{ -set_bit (PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS , &p->atomic_flags); -} +#define TASK_PFA_BITOPS (name, func) \
include/linux/sched.h static inline void memalloc_noio_restore(unsigned int flags) · line 1972
Quoted 10 lines
include/linux/sched.h +10
-0+static inline bool task_##func(struct task_struct *p) \ +{ return test_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); } \ + \ +static inline void task_set_##func(struct task_struct *p) \ +{ set_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); } \ + \ +static inline void task_clear_##func(struct task_struct *p) \ +{ clear_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); } + +TASK_PFA_BITOPS (NO_NEW_PRIVS , no_new_privs)
One thing I don't like about this is that task_clear_no_new_privs() ends up getting defined, and it should absolutely never be used. NNP should never be cleared or there could be security issues. I realize this isn't a very useful nit-pick, but I'd rather the function wasn't even available for someone to accidentally use. Maybe break up the macro with some kind of "write only" version like:
#define TASK_PFA_BITOPS_WO(name, func) \
static inline bool task_##func(struct task_struct *p) \
{ return test_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); } \
static inline void task_set_##func(struct task_struct *p) \{ set_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); }
#define TASK_PFA_BITOPS(name, func) \TASK_PFA_BITOPS_WO(name, func); \
static inline void task_clear_##func(struct task_struct *p) \
{ clear_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); }
TASK_PFA_BITOPS_WO(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs)
And then all the new users can use TASK_PFA_BITOPS() normally since they expect to use "clear"?
-Kees
Quoted 30 lines
include/linux/sched.h +0
-0/* * task->jobctl flags scripts/tags.sh +6
-1@@ -197,6 +197,9 @@ exuberant() --regex-c++='/SETPCGFLAG\(([^,)]*).*/SetPageCgroup\1/' \ --regex-c++='/CLEARPCGFLAG\(([^,)]*).*/ClearPageCgroup\1/' \ --regex-c++='/TESTCLEARPCGFLAG\(([^,)]*).*/TestClearPageCgroup\1/' \ + --regex-c++='/TASK_PFA_BITOPS\([^,]*,\s*([^)]*)\)/task_\1/' \ + --regex-c++='/TASK_PFA_BITOPS\([^,]*,\s*([^)]*)\)/task_set_\1/' \ + --regex-c++='/TASK_PFA_BITOPS\([^,]*,\s*([^)]*)\)/task_clear_\1/' \ --regex-c='/PCI_OP_READ\((\w*).*[1-4]\)/pci_bus_read_config_\1/' \ --regex-c='/PCI_OP_WRITE\((\w*).*[1-4]\)/pci_bus_write_config_\1/' \ --regex-c='/DEFINE_(MUTEX|SEMAPHORE|SPINLOCK)\((\w*)/\2/v/' \@@ -260,6 +263,9 @@ emacs() --regex='/SETPCGFLAG\(([^,)]*).*/SetPageCgroup\1/' \ --regex='/CLEARPCGFLAG\(([^,)]*).*/ClearPageCgroup\1/' \ --regex='/TESTCLEARPCGFLAG\(([^,)]*).*/TestClearPageCgroup\1/' \ + --regex='/TASK_PFA_BITOPS\([^,]*,\s*([^)]*)\)/task_\1/' \ + --regex='/TASK_PFA_BITOPS\([^,]*,\s*([^)]*)\)/task_set_\1/' \ + --regex='/TASK_PFA_BITOPS\([^,]*,\s*([^)]*)\)/task_clear_\1/' \ --regex='/_PE(\([^,)]*\).*/PEVENT_ERRNO__\1/' \ --regex='/PCI_OP_READ(\([a-z]*[a-z]\).*[1-4])/pci_bus_read_config_\1/' \ --regex='/PCI_OP_WRITE(\([a-z]*[a-z]\).*[1-4])/pci_bus_write_config_\1/'\ --1.8.0.2
Signature · 2 lines
Kees Cook Chrome OS Security
Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] sched: add a macro to define bitops for task atomic flags
Quoted 39 lines
Quoted 10 lines
include/linux/sched.h +1
-9-static inline bool task_no_new_privs (struct task_struct *p) -{ -return test_bit (PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS , &p->atomic_flags); -} - -static inline void task_set_no_new_privs (struct task_struct *p) -{ -set_bit (PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS , &p->atomic_flags); -} +#define TASK_PFA_BITOPS (name, func) \include/linux/sched.h static inline void memalloc_noio_restore(unsigned int flags) · line 1972
Quoted 10 lines
include/linux/sched.h +10
-0+static inline bool task_##func(struct task_struct *p) \ +{ return test_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); } \ + \ +static inline void task_set_##func(struct task_struct *p) \ +{ set_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); } \ + \ +static inline void task_clear_##func(struct task_struct *p) \ +{ clear_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); } + +TASK_PFA_BITOPS (NO_NEW_PRIVS , no_new_privs)One thing I don't like about this is that
task_clear_no_new_privs()ends up getting defined, and it should absolutely never be used. NNP should never be cleared or there could be security issues. I realize this isn't a very useful nit-pick, but I'd rather the function wasn't even available for someone to accidentally use. Maybe break up the macro with some kind of "write only" version like:#define
TASK_PFA_BITOPS_WO(name, func)\static inline bool task_##func(struct task_struct *p) \ { return test_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); } \ static inline void task_set_##func(struct task_struct *p) \{
set_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); }#define
TASK_PFA_BITOPS(name, func)\TASK_PFA_BITOPS_WO(name, func); \
static inline void task_clear_##func(structtask_struct*p) \
{clear_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); }
Quoted 5 lines
TASK_PFA_BITOPS_WO(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs)And then all the new users can use
TASK_PFA_BITOPS()normally since they expect to use "clear"?
Now I'm inclined to do this:
+#define TASK_PFA_TEST(name, func) \
+ static inline bool task_##func(struct task_struct *p) \
+ { return test_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); }
+#define TASK_PFA_SET(name, func) \
+ static inline void task_set_##func(struct task_struct *p) \
+ { set_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); }
+#define TASK_PFA_CLEAR(name, func) \
+ static inline void task_clear_##func(struct task_struct *p) \
+ { clear_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); }
+
+TASK_PFA_TEST(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs)
+TASK_PFA_SET(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs)
PATCH v2 3/3 cpuset: PF_SPREAD_PAGE and PF_SPREAD_SLAB should be atomic flags
In reply to Zefan LiWhen we change cpuset.memory_spread_{page,slab}, cpuset will flip PF_SPREAD_{PAGE,SLAB} bit of tsk->flags for each task in that cpuset. This should be done using atomic bitops, but currently we don't, which is broken.
Tetsuo reported a hard-to-reproduce kernel crash on RHEL6, which happend when one thread tried to clear PF_USED_MATH while at the same time another thread tried to flip PF_SPREAD_PAGE/PF_SPREAD_SLAB. They both operate on the same task.
Here's the full report:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/19/230
To fix this, we make PF_SPREAD_PAGE and PF_SPARED_SLAB atomic flags.
--- include/linux/cpuset.h | 4 ++-- include/linux/sched.h | 6 ++++-- kernel/cpuset.c | 9 +++++---- 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
include/linux/cpuset.h +2 -2
@@ -94,12 +94,12 @@ extern int cpuset_slab_spread_node(void);static inline int cpuset_do_page_mem_spread (void ) { -return current->flags &PF_SPREAD_PAGE ; +return task_spread_page (current); }static inline int cpuset_do_slab_mem_spread (void ) { -return current->flags &PF_SPREAD_SLAB ; +return task_spread_slab (current); }extern int current_cpuset_is_being_rebound (void );
include/linux/sched.h +4 -2
@@ -1903,8 +1903,6 @@ extern void thread_group_cputime_adjusted(struct task_struct *p, cputime_t *ut,#define PF_KTHREAD 0x00200000/* I am a kernel thread */ #define PF_RANDOMIZE 0x00400000/* randomize virtual address space */ #define PF_SWAPWRITE 0x00800000/* Allowed to write to swap */ -#define PF_SPREAD_PAGE 0x01000000/* Spread page cache over cpuset */ -#define PF_SPREAD_SLAB 0x02000000/* Spread some slab caches over cpuset */ #define PF_NO_SETAFFINITY 0x04000000/* Userland is not allowed to meddle with cpus_allowed */ #define PF_MCE_EARLY 0x08000000/* Early kill for mce process policy */ #define PF_MUTEX_TESTER 0x20000000/* Thread belongs to the rt mutex tester */
@@ -1958,6 +1956,8 @@ static inline void memalloc_noio_restore(unsigned int flags)/* Per-process atomic flags. */ #define PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS 0/* May not gain new privileges. */ +#define PFA_SPREAD_PAGE 1/* Spread page cache over cpuset */ +#define PFA_SPREAD_SLAB 2/* Spread some slab caches over cpuset */ #define TASK_PFA_BITOPS (name, func) \ static inline bool task_##func(struct task_struct *p) \
@@ -1970,6 +1970,8 @@ static inline void task_clear_##func(struct task_struct *p) \ { clear_bit(PFA_##name, &p->atomic_flags); } TASK_PFA_BITOPS(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs) +TASK_PFA_BITOPS(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page) +TASK_PFA_BITOPS (SPREAD_SLAB , spread_slab)/* * task->jobctl flags
kernel/cpuset.c +5 -4
@@ -365,13 +365,14 @@ static void cpuset_update_task_spread_flag(struct cpuset *cs, struct task_struct *tsk) {if (is_spread_page (cs)) - tsk->flags |=PF_SPREAD_PAGE ; +task_set_spread_page (tsk);else - tsk->flags &= ~PF_SPREAD_PAGE ; +task_clear_spread_page (tsk); +if (is_spread_slab (cs)) - tsk->flags |=PF_SPREAD_SLAB ; +task_set_spread_slab (tsk);else - tsk->flags &= ~PF_SPREAD_SLAB ; +task_clear_spread_slab (tsk); }/*
Signature · 1 line
1.8.0.2
Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] cpuset: PF_SPREAD_PAGE and PF_SPREAD_SLAB should beatomic flags
Quoted 1 line · Zefan Li
Tetsuo reported a hard-to-reproduce kernel crash on RHEL6, which happend
s/happend/happened/
Review static inline void memalloc_noio_restore(unsigned int flags) · line 1983
Quoted 12 lines
(quoted diff) +8
-0@@ -1972,6 +1973,14 @@ static inline void memalloc_noio_restore(unsigned int flags) TASK_PFA_TEST(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs) TASK_PFA_SET(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs) +TASK_PFA_TEST(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page) +TASK_PFA_SET(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page) +TASK_PFA_CLEAR(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page) + +TASK_PFA_TEST(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab) +TASK_PFA_SET(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab) +TASK_PFA_CLEAR(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab) +
I wonder how adding 3 macro lines differs from 3 inlined functions. Personally, from LXR (source code browser) point of view, inlined functions are more friendly than macros. Also, I wonder about the cost of extracting macros in a file which is likely included by every file but referenced by few files. Speak of SPREAD_PAGE and SPREAD_SLAB, they should be defined as inlined functions in include/linux/cpuset.h rather than as macros in include/linux/sched.h ?
Tejun Heo
maintainerRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] cpuset: PF_SPREAD_PAGE and PF_SPREAD_SLAB should beatomic flags
Quoted 9 lines · Tetsuo Handa
Quoted 1 line · Zefan Li
Tetsuo reported a hard-to-reproduce kernel crash on RHEL6, which happend
s/happend/happened/
Quoted 4 lines
(quoted diff) +0
-0@@ -1972,6 +1973,14 @@ static inline void memalloc_noio_restore(unsigned int flags) TASK_PFA_TEST(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs) TASK_PFA_SET(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs)
Quoted 16 lines
Review static inline void memalloc_noio_restore(unsigned int flags) · line 1983
Quoted 8 lines
(quoted diff) +8
-0+TASK_PFA_TEST(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page) +TASK_PFA_SET(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page) +TASK_PFA_CLEAR(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page) + +TASK_PFA_TEST(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab) +TASK_PFA_SET(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab) +TASK_PFA_CLEAR(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab) +I wonder how adding 3 macro lines differs from 3 inlined functions. Personally, from LXR (source code browser) point of view, inlined functions are more friendly than macros. Also, I wonder about the cost of extracting macros in a file which is likely included by every file but referenced by few files. Speak of
SPREAD_PAGEandSPREAD_SLAB, they should be defined as inlined functions ininclude/linux/cpuset.hrather than as macros ininclude/linux/sched.h?
I think sched.h is fine along w/ inlines for other flags but yeah we might be better off just open-coding them.
Thanks.
Signature · 1 line
tejun
Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] cpuset: PF_SPREAD_PAGE and PF_SPREAD_SLAB should beatomic flags
In reply to Tetsuo HandaQuoted 18 lines · Tetsuo Handa
Quoted 1 line · Zefan Li
Tetsuo reported a hard-to-reproduce kernel crash on RHEL6, which happend
s/happend/happened/
Review static inline void memalloc_noio_restore(unsigned int flags) · line 1983
Quoted 12 lines
(quoted diff) +8
-0@@ -1972,6 +1973,14 @@ static inline void memalloc_noio_restore(unsigned int flags) TASK_PFA_TEST(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs) TASK_PFA_SET(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs) +TASK_PFA_TEST(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page) +TASK_PFA_SET(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page) +TASK_PFA_CLEAR(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page) + +TASK_PFA_TEST(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab) +TASK_PFA_SET(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab) +TASK_PFA_CLEAR(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab) +
Quoted 8 lines
I wonder how adding 3 macro lines differs from 3 inlined functions. Personally, from LXR (source code browser) point of view, inlined functions are more friendly than macros. Also, I wonder about the cost of extracting macros in a file which is likely included by every file but referenced by few files. Speak of
SPREAD_PAGEandSPREAD_SLAB, they should be defined as inlined functions ininclude/linux/cpuset.hrather than as macros ininclude/linux/sched.h?
.
Though tsk->atomic_flags were newly introduced in 3.17 merge window, we already have 3 flags, and we may see more flags added.
Those macros make the code easier to read, and emacs and cscope can also understand them.
I'd vote for this:
TASK_PFA_TEST(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs)TASK_PFA_SET(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs)
TASK_PFA_TEST(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page)TASK_PFA_SET(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page)TASK_PFA_CLEAR(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page)
TASK_PFA_TEST(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab)TASK_PFA_SET(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab)TASK_PFA_CLEAR(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab)
over this:
static inline bool task_no_new_privs(struct task_struct *p)
{
return test_bit(PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &p->atomic_flags);
}
static inline void task_set_new_privs(struct task_struct *p)
{
set_bit(PFA_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &p->atomic_flags);
}static inline bool task_spread_page(struct task_struct *p)
{
return test_bit(PFA_SPREAD_PAGE, &p->atomic_flags);
}
static inline void task_set_spread_page(struct task_struct *p)
{
set_bit(PFA_SPREAD_PAGE, &p->atomic_flags);
}
static inline void task_clear_spread_page(struct task_struct *p)
{
clear_bit(PFA_SPREAD_PAGE, &p->atomic_flags);
}static inline bool task_spread_slab(struct task_struct *p)
{
return test_bit(PFA_SPREAD_SLAB, &p->atomic_flags);
}
static inline void task_set_spread_slab(struct task_struct *p)
{
set_bit(PFA_SPREAD_SLAB, &p->atomic_flags);
}
static inline void task_clear_spread_slab(struct task_struct *p)
{
clear_bit(PFA_SPREAD_SLAB, &p->atomic_flags);
}Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] cpuset: PF_SPREAD_PAGE and PF_SPREAD_SLAB should be atomic flags
Quoted 2 lines · Zefan Li
Those macros make the code easier to read, and emacs and cscope can also understand them.
I'm using legacy LXR which cannot understand them. But
Quoted 9 lines
I'd vote for this:
TASK_PFA_TEST(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs)TASK_PFA_SET(NO_NEW_PRIVS, no_new_privs)
TASK_PFA_TEST(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page)TASK_PFA_SET(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page)TASK_PFA_CLEAR(SPREAD_PAGE, spread_page)
Quoted 5 lines
TASK_PFA_TEST(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab)TASK_PFA_SET(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab)TASK_PFA_CLEAR(SPREAD_SLAB, spread_slab)over this:
you can go ahead. This difference is not a stopper.
Quoted 4 lines · Tejun Heo
All the patches look good to me. I can't say I'm a big fan of function defining macros but I don't have prettier alternatives either. Once Peter/Ingo acks the patches, I'll route them through cgroup/for-3.17-fixes.
Peter and Ingo, are these patches OK for you?
Tejun Heo
maintainerRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] cpuset: PF_SPREAD_PAGE and PF_SPREAD_SLAB should be atomic flags
Quoted 7 lines · Tetsuo Handa
Quoted 4 lines · Tejun Heo
All the patches look good to me. I can't say I'm a big fan of function defining macros but I don't have prettier alternatives either. Once Peter/Ingo acks the patches, I'll route them through cgroup/for-3.17-fixes.
Peter and Ingo, are these patches OK for you?
Peter acked. I'll apply the patches to cgroup/for-3.17-fixes.
Thanks.
Signature · 1 line
tejun