linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] fs: break the file_list_lock for sb->s

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070128153006.GB23410@infradead.org>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:30:06 +0000
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] fs: break the file_list_lock for sb->s_files

On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:21:06PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > sb->s_files is converted to a lock_list. furthermore to prevent the 
> > > lock_list_head of getting too contended with concurrent add 
> > > operations the add is buffered in per cpu filevecs.
> > 
> > NACK.  Please don't start using lockdep internals in core code.
> 
> what do you mean by that?

struct lock_list is an lockdep implementation detail and should not
leak out and be used anywhere else.   If we want something similar it
should be given a proper name and a header of it's own, but I don't
think it's a valueable abstraction for the core kernel.
-
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/