linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/7] epoll keyed wakeups - introduce key-aware wakeup macros

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:	Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:03:07 -0800 (PST)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/7] epoll keyed wakeups - introduce key-aware wakeup
 macros

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Alan Cox wrote:

> > One minor worry i have: these wakeup calls are _very_ common in the 
> > kernel, and this patch adds an extra parameter to it that is unused (NULL) 
> > in 99% of the cases.
> 
> And in most of the cases it is used is constant for the waitqueue anyway
> or appears to be (eg the tty patch). I don't think we should be stacking
> extra parameters on all those zillions of calls made all over the kernel
> and for no purpose - so the existing wakeup functions should stay as is
> for performance as well as for size (which due to cache pressure is
> performance).

Besides for that, did the TTY patch look sane to you? Did I get all the 
wakeup points? TTY code always gave me the willies :)


- Davide


--
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/