linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] locking: Simplify mutex and rwsem spinning code

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:	Wed, 08 Apr 2015 12:49:41 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] locking: Simplify mutex and rwsem spinning code

On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 12:39 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> This patchset applies on top of tip.
> 
> Jason Low (2):
>   locking/mutex: Further refactor mutex_spin_on_owner()
>   locking/rwsem: Use a return variable in rwsem_spin_on_owner()
> 
>  kernel/locking/mutex.c      |   14 ++++----------
>  kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c |   25 ++++++++++++-------------
>  2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

Meh. Personally I wouldn't mid leaving these files alone for a change,
the code is already pretty readable imho. Of course its a matter of
taste, so I won't argue.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
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/