| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:38:26 +0100 From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> CC: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>, gregkh@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] pci : Use mutex instead of semaphore in driver core Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 12:42:31PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote: >> I think a broken-up patch series isn't totally wrong to do for a first >> look at these RFC patches. Of course the series needs to become a >> single patch before it is committed to a tree whose history needs to >> support bijection, e.g. -mm. > > For this kind of patch (converting a semaphore to a mutex), it is > necessary to see everywhere that changes. There's no way to tell if what > he's doing is safe without seeing all the places that have to change, > and verifying whether it breaks any of the rules in include/linux/mutex.h Exactly. > For other kinds of patches, you could well be right. You can see the whole of the changes by looking at the whole of Dave's postings. (This would of course be simpler if it was a single posting.) -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== ==-- ===-= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists