linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/12] Generic semaphore implementation

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 3 Mar 2008 07:54:34 -0700
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] Generic semaphore implementation

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 06:37:59PM -0800, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Because this function is inlined, the 'state' parameter will be constant,
> > + * and thus optimised away by the compiler.
> > + */
> 
> If so, is unlikely() still needed?

It's needed for the case where the function is inlined into
__down_interruptible / __down_killable.

> Other than that small bit, looks great, any thoughts to getting rid of
> all the likely/unlikely as well?  If they're no longer performance
> critical, it would be nice to have it that little bit cleaner.

I'd rather keep it as close to mutex.c as possible.

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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/