linux-kernel - Re: lockdep oddity

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]

Message-ID: <20060906080129.GD6898@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Sep 2006 10:01:29 +0200
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>,
	Hua Zhong <hzhong@...il.com>
Subject: Re: lockdep oddity

On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:47:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:20:43 +0200
> Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'm also wondering why the profile
> > patch contains this:
> > 
> > +       if (ret)
> > +               likeliness->count[1]++;
> > +       else
> > +               likeliness->count[0]++;
> > 
> > This isn't smp safe. Is that on purpose or a bug?
> 
> Purposeful.   This is called from all contexts, including NMI.

Why not use atomic_inc then? Or is there some architecture dependent
limitation that it can't be done in every context?
-
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/