linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/12] mutex: add atomic_dec_and_mutex

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:	Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:46:00 -0400
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	hch@...radead.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
	john@...nmccutchan.com, rlove@...ve.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] mutex: add atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock

On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 13:27 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:53:05 -0400
> Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Much like the atomic_dec_and_lock() function in which we take and hold a
> > spin_lock if we drop the atomic to 0 this function takes and holds the
> > mutex if we dec the atomic to 0.
> 
> I sucked these patches into -mm, mainly for a bit of compile-time and
> runtime testing.
> 
> I read through them all on the previous iteration.  IIRC my main
> impression was that the code and the data structures were not
> sufficiently well commented for that review to have been particularly
> effective.  Hopefully things improved there?

I added hundreds of lines of comments where I hope they will be
useful.....
> 
> It would be good if Al and/or hch and/or others could review this work.
> Christoph has indicated that he will be doing this.
> 
> You didn't reply to all my review comments from last time, but from a
> quick random sample I see that some/most comments have been addressed. 
> Hopefully all were at least considered.

Every comment was considered, I promise!

> It's a little worrisome that my comment against this particular patch
> was lost, and the patch was verbatim merged into Ingo's perfcounter
> branch.  Did anything else get lost?

Actually, by the time you commented on it the patch was already added
and in use in Ingo's tree, which was why I didn't make the change  I
could (and I will) follow up with another patch to make the requested
change rather than change this patch.

-Eric

--
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/