linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] make cancel_rearming_delayed

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070521101040.GC1695@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Mon, 21 May 2007 12:10:40 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Gautham Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make cancel_rearming_delayed_work() reliable

On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:59:46AM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
...
> Well, it might be just because I'm used to what I call 'locked
> enter/leave' model.  If people don't find that easier to understand, no
> objection from me and kudos to Oleg for getting it right from the beginning.

I think most people here, at least me too, are used to the same.
At first I didn't even think whether Oleg's feelings about these
barriers were right - it was obvious to me any barriers (!) should
be avoided.

But while reading David's manual I started to doubt: there had to
be some reasons these CPUs were done such nasty way. And probably
it wasn't about punishing the programmers. So, maybe sometimes
good, old habits aren't the best advisors...

Cheers,
Jarek P.
-
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/