linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] serial: samsung: fix the inconsistency in spinlock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 21 Feb 2016 10:30:02 +0900
From:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
To:	Anand Moon <linux.amoon@...il.com>
Cc:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
	<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: samsung: fix the inconsistency in spinlock

>>> In my next patch I have tried to remove the spin_unlock/spin_lock over
>>> uart_write_wakeup(port);
>>
>> Which may create lockups. Previously there was no port locking around
>> uart_write_wakeup. Now there will be. You are effectively adding locking
>> over uart_write_wakeup().
>> Again, we are back at the Peter's message - just check the damned lockups...
>>
>> BR,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>> BR
>>
>
> Lets drop this patch. I have send new one earlier.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/19/2
>
> If you have any comment on that.
> Sorry for the confusion.

I was commenting your future patch about dropping spinlocks.
Apparently there is huge misunderstanding here...

Best regards,
Krzysztof