linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down

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: <46698358.2030407@de.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:27:04 +0200
From:	Martin Peschke <mp3@...ibm.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	"Bill Huey (hui)" <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	jbaron@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down

Ingo Molnar wrote:
 > Firstly, submit cleanup patches that _do not change the output_. If you
 > have any output changes, do it as a separate patch, ontop of the cleanup
 > patch. Mixing material changes and cleanups into a single patch is a
 > basic patch submission mistake that will only earn you NACKs.

Let's put this straight: it has not been my primary goal to clean it up.
I have posted an alternative implementation. One of the good things about the
alternative implementation is lines-of-savings through code sharing.

Don't hear me say my code is perfect. As anybody else here I am relying on
reviews and feedback in order to make it good enough.

I think there has been enough duplication to consider a component
that statistics data is handed over to.

Martin

-
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/