linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] MMC updates

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: <464180B7.2090703@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 09 May 2007 18:05:11 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] MMC updates

Pierre Ossman wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>>If you want to ensure you always only modify host->removed from under
>>the spinlock, it would be enforcable by introducing an accessor function
>>and doing a BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked()) in there.
>>
>>If you just want to ensure that host->removed is 0 at this point, you
>>shouldn't need any spinlocks AFAIKS... that way you can probably afford
>>to move it out from CONFIG_MMC_DEBUG and get wider testing.
>>
> 
> 
> The host->removed member is only used for this simple test. It is set in
> mmc_host_remove() to indicate that the removal process has begun. At
> this point it is invalid to call mmc_detect_change() (the place this
> patch fixes). So the spinlocks are mostly there so that things are
> properly ordered when we go SMP. Some creative barriers would probably
> work as well, but I find spinlocks more "normal" and hence more readable.

Fair enough. No big deal :)

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/