netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: rw

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:	Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:07:13 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Stephen Clark <sclark46@...thlink.net>,
	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: rw_lock lessons learned

William Allen Simpson wrote, On 12/11/2009 06:01 PM:

> William Allen Simpson wrote:
>> In recent weeks, two different network projects erroneously
>> strayed down the rw_lock path.  Update the Documentation
>> based upon comments by Eric Dumazet and Paul E. McKenney in
>> those threads.
>>
>> Merged with editorial changes by Stephen Hemminger.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: William.Allen.Simpson@...il.com
>> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
> A month ago, I'd taken the final line "Ho humm.." of Linus'
> response to mean he wasn't interested.  But at the local
> discussion yesterday, I'm told that's just a typical Linusism.

Why would he write 6 paragraphs if he wasn't interested?

> 
> The thread diverged into discussion of another document entirely.
> 
> I'm not the person to update this document with any of the other
> information about global locks and tasklists and such.  But surely
> somebody else could handle that in another patch.
> 
> Anybody have answers/updates to Linus's concerns about "pretty old
> and bogus language"?  Would folks be interested in the update?
> Does anybody know which list(s) would be better for discussion?

I guess, you could literally start with removing this "global
interrupt lock", adding "the example of a _good_ case of rwlocks",
plus Stephen's "it is not just networking" fix in v3.

Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html