linux-kernel - RE: lockdep oddity

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 6 Sep 2006 01:23:02 -0700
From:	"Hua Zhong" <hzhong@...il.com>
To:	"'Heiko Carstens'" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	"'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	"'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo@...e.hu>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'Arjan van de Ven'" <arjan@...radead.org>,
	"'Daniel Walker'" <dwalker@...sta.com>
Subject: RE: lockdep oddity

We are just trading accuracy for speed here.

> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:47:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:20:43 +0200
> > Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm also wondering why the profile
> > > patch contains this:
> > > 
> > > +       if (ret)
> > > +               likeliness->count[1]++;
> > > +       else
> > > +               likeliness->count[0]++;
> > > 
> > > This isn't smp safe. Is that on purpose or a bug?
> > 
> > Purposeful.   This is called from all contexts, including NMI.
> 
> Why not use atomic_inc then? Or is there some architecture 
> dependent limitation that it can't be done in every context?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/