linux-kernel - Re: [rfc] lock bitops

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: <20070508150631.GC10562@parisc-linux.org>
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2007 09:06:32 -0600
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] lock bitops

On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:37:09PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> --
> Introduce test_and_set_bit_lock / clear_bit_unlock bitops with lock semantics.
> Add non-trivial for powerpc and ia64. Convert page lock, buffer lock,
> bit_spin_lock, tasklet locks to use the new locks.

The names are a bit clumsy.  How about naming them after the effect,
rather than the implementation?  It struck me that really these things
are bit mutexes -- you can sleep while holding the lock.  How about
calling them bit_mutex_trylock() and bit_mutex_unlock()?

-
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/