linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] lock_cpu_hotplug: Redesign - Lightweight implementation of lock_cpu

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: <20061026141450.53b48b88.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:14:50 -0700
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	ego@...ibm.com
Cc:	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, torvalds@...l.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ibm.com,
	vatsa@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, gaughen@...ibm.com,
	arjan@...ux.intel.org, davej@...hat.com,
	venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com, kiran@...lex86.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] lock_cpu_hotplug: Redesign - Lightweight
 implementation of lock_cpu_hotplug.

Gautham wrote:
+ *- Readers assume control iff:					*
+ *    a) No other reader has a reference and no writer is writing.	*
+ *    OR								*
+ *    b) Atleast one reader (on *any* cpu) has a reference.		*

Isn't this logically equivalent to stating:

  *- Readers assume control iff no writer is writing

(Or if it's not equivalent, it might be interesting to state why.)

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/