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: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:18:07 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Sven Eckelmann <sven@...fation.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, simon.wunderlich@...03.tu-chemnitz.de, Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@...oo.de> Subject: Re: Using nested locking for spin_lock_bh On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 18:36 +0200, Sven Eckelmann wrote: > > Is there another way how this should be done or is there a general problem why > there is no nested support for this incarnation of spin_lock? No reason other than that it wasn't needed before now, but I see you've resolved things with a lockdep_set_class() which works too. -- 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