linux-kernel - Re: [KJ]remove SPIN_LOCK

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: <ada3b37q4c2.fsf@cisco.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:58:37 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	Milind Arun Choudhary <milindchoudhary@...il.com>,
	kernel-janitors@...ts.osdl.org, kernelnewbies@...linux.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [KJ]remove SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED

 > > Don't worry about the __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED stuff, that's
 > > obviously not for generic code to use.  The right answer (as I said
 > > before) is to use DEFINE_SPINLOCK().
 > 
 > that works fine if you're defining a single spinlock, but what do you
 > do in cases like this:
 > 
 > arch/sparc/lib/atomic32.c:      [0 ... (ATOMIC_HASH_SIZE-1)] = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED
 > 
 > that is, when you're assigning an array of them?  you still need some
 > kind of generic, unnamed spinlock in those circumstances, no?

Wow, I didn't realize there was code doing that.  I guess for that
handful of cases, you indeed would probably want to convert them to
raw_spinlock_t and use __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED.  But in the vast
majority of cases, DEFINE_SPINLOCK() is the right think to do.

 - R.
-
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/