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: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:11:47 +0800 From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com> To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com, patches@...aro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] rcu: direct algorithmic SRCU implementation On 02/21/2012 01:44 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >> My conclusion, we can just remove the check-and-return path to reduce >> the complexity since we will introduce call_srcu(). > > If I actually submit the above upstream, that would be quite reasonable. > My thought is that patch remains RFC and the upstream version has > call_srcu(). Does the work of call_srcu() is started or drafted? > >> This new srcu is very great, especially the SRCU_USAGE_COUNT for every >> lock/unlock witch forces any increment/decrement pair changes the counter >> for me. > > Glad you like it! ;-) > > And thank you for your review and feedback! Could you add my Reviewed-by when this patch is last submitted? Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com> Thanks Lai -- 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