linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] lockdep: Introduce wait-type checks

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:	Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:40:41 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] lockdep: Introduce wait-type checks


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> > But what I really can't understans is what "check == 0" means? It 
> > seems that in fact it can be 1 or 2? Or, iow, "check == 0" is 
> > actually equivalent to "check == 1" ?
> 
> Hmm indeed, the comment in lockdep.h says 0 means no checks at all, 
> but the code doesn't actually appear to work like that. I'm not sure 
> it ever did or not, I'd have to go dig through history.
> 
> That said, given the current state it certainly looks like we can 
> remove the check argument.
> 
> Ingo?

Agreed.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/