linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH for review] [12/48] x86

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]

Date:	Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:29:39 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for review] [12/48] x86_64: use the global PIT lock

On Thursday 19 July 2007 17:22:38 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Andi,
> 
> On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:
> >
> > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> >
> > Replace the pcspkr private PIT lock by the global PIT lock to serialize the
> > PIT access all over the place.
> >
> 
> Like I said before I'd be more happy if spinlock was attached to a
> platform device that pcspkr binds to so the arch code would control
> wehther we use a private spinlock or a global one (I sent a patch to
> that effect earlier). 

Not sure that flexibility is needed. Why would an architecture ever want
to have more than one lock for this? And we normally don't need sysdevs
for locks, they seem to be quite unrelated.

AFAIK sysdevs are just for suspend/resume, and even for that they seem
to get obsoleted now.

-Andi
-
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/