linux-kernel - Re: use of preempt_count instead of in

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: <20080325232042.4EDA7346532@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net>
Date:	Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:20:42 -0700
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	rpurdie@...ys.net
Cc:	gitster@...ox.com, corbet@....net, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
	mingo@...e.hu, mb@...sch.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	khali@...ux-fr.org, hmh@....eng.br, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c

I _almost_ hate bringing this lovely flamage back onto $SUBJECT ... but
what's the resolution for the leds-gpio.c issue?  I've not seen a merge
notice for the patch I submitted a week ago now:

	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120597839009399&w=2

Just a "leaning..." comment:

	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120606104619198&w=2

Seems to me that by now there ought to be resolution on at least
one of the issues brought up on this thread.  :)

- Dave

--
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/