linux-kernel - Re: [cpuops cmpxchg double V2 1/4] Generic support for this_cpu_cmpxchg

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:	Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:31:55 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [cpuops cmpxchg double V2 1/4] Generic support for this_cpu_cmpxchg_double

On 01/21/2011 01:26 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 09:31:02AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> On 1/8/11 7:24 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Call me weird but I like this one than others.  It sure is ugly but
>>> the operation itself isn't a particularly pretty so it kinda matches.
>>> Also, this one is the least error prone and more consistent with other
>>> cpu ops.
>>
>> So what are we going to do about this patch? I'd love to merge
>> Christoph's SLUB patches for linux-next now that .38-rc1 is out.
> 
> At least you like it, which is good.
> 
> I don't think the currently proposed one with two separate parameters
> is significantly better than other alternatives and vice-versa.  They
> all have slightly different ugliness and error proneness issues.
> 
> That said, I still like the double parameter one best, and, unless
> there are distinctively good reasons to choose another one, I'm gonna
> commit it to percpu tree in a few days so that merge can proceed.  So,
> if you have something to say, now would be a good time to assert it.
> 

I really object to passing two pointers where one of them has to be a
fixed offset to the other.  That really doesn't make any sense.

	-hpa
--
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/