| 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: Wed, 6 May 2009 12:19:08 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: mingo@...e.hu, dhowells@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, niv@...ibm.com, dvhltc@...ibm.com, lethal@...ux-sh.org, kernel@...tstofly.org, matthew@....cx Subject: Re: [PATCH] v4 RCU: the bloatwatch edition On Wed, 6 May 2009 12:02:16 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > i'm wondering what Andrew thinks - he had objections, right? > > > > > > > More like "concerns". It's unobvious to me that the modest .text > > savings justify the costs of an additional RCU implementation. Where > > those costs include > > > > - additional maintenance work and > > > > - the reduced code reliability which comes from fragmenting the > > tester base. This will mostly affect users of the less popular RCU > > implementations. > > > > But hey, maybe I'm wrong. And maybe I'm right, but we'll merge it anyway ;) > > ;-) > > How about if acceptance of Tiny RCU happens at the same time as Classic > RCU is dropped? That would be a large net decrease in code size and > complexity. It's a bit artificial to link the two actions. Removing something: good. Adding something: bad. good+bad == less good ;) -- 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