| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:14:53 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@...l.net> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.23-mm1] Change the ida/idr_pre_get() return value to follow the kernel convention On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:06:32 +0100 Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@...l.net> wrote: > > > > Storage classes which need to allcoate memory at insertion time are hard: > > radix_tree_preload() gets it right in terms of robustness, but it's an > > awful lot of fuss. > > > > IDR gets it all wrong and compounds the problem by implementing internal > > locking. It shouldn't have done that: storage code like this should use > > only caller-provided locking. > > Ok, but for that, I prefer to let the IDR maintainers see what they can do, > because I'm not familiar at all with the IDR implementation and can not focus on > that now. Jim isn't very active nowadays > So do you think that just providing a new API (something like > idr_pre_allocate(), as you say above) would be better than nothing ? > Or we just leave the code as is for now ? I guess we can leave it as-is if the present interface isn't actually causing you guys any problems. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists