linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] De-macro spin_trylock_irq, spin_trylock_irqsave, write_trylock

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

Date:	Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:48:55 +0400
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
Cc:	torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] De-macro spin_trylock_irq, spin_trylock_irqsave,
	write_trylock_irqsave

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 03:31:00PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 08/16/2008 11:59 AM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> 1) de-macro, remove ({ usages as side-effect,
>> 2) change calling convention to not accept "flags" by value -- trylock
>>    functions can modify them, so by-value is misleading, and number of 
>> users
>>    is relatively low.
>> 3) de-macro spin_trylock_irq() for a change.
>
> Doesn't this break on sparc -- is it tested there?

What's so special about sparc?

If you mean compile-tested, yes, compile-tested on

	sparc-allnoconfig
	sparc-defconfig
	sparc-smp-n-debug-n
	sparc-smp-n-debug-y
	sparc-smp-y-debug-n
	sparc-smp-y-debug-y

> Shouldn't all that be __always_inline?

I don't know, likely nobody cares if they are inline or not.

>> --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
>> @@ -320,26 +320,38 @@ do {						\
>>   #define spin_trylock_bh(lock)	__cond_lock(lock, _spin_trylock_bh(lock))
>>  -#define spin_trylock_irq(lock) \
>> -({ \
>> -	local_irq_disable(); \
>> -	spin_trylock(lock) ? \
>> -	1 : ({ local_irq_enable(); 0;  }); \
>> -})
>> -
>> -#define spin_trylock_irqsave(lock, flags) \
>> -({ \
>> -	local_irq_save(flags); \
>> -	spin_trylock(lock) ? \
>> -	1 : ({ local_irq_restore(flags); 0; }); \
>> -})
>> -
>> -#define write_trylock_irqsave(lock, flags) \
>> -({ \
>> -	local_irq_save(flags); \
>> -	write_trylock(lock) ? \
>> -	1 : ({ local_irq_restore(flags); 0; }); \
>> -})
>> +static inline int spin_trylock_irq(spinlock_t *lock)
>> +{
>> +	local_irq_disable();
>> +	if (spin_trylock(lock))
>> +		return 1;
>> +	else {
>> +		local_irq_enable();
>> +		return 0;
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline int spin_trylock_irqsave(spinlock_t *lock, unsigned long 
>> *flags)
>> +{
>> +	local_irq_save(*flags);
>> +	if (spin_trylock(lock))
>> +		return 1;
>> +	else {
>> +		local_irq_restore(*flags);
>> +		return 0;
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline int write_trylock_irqsave(rwlock_t *lock, unsigned long 
>> *flags)
>> +{
>> +	local_irq_save(*flags);
>> +	if (write_trylock(lock))
>> +		return 1;
>> +	else {
>> +		local_irq_restore(*flags);
>> +		return 0;
>> +	}
>> +}
>>   /*
>>   * Pull the atomic_t declaration:

--
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/