linux-kernel - RE: down_spin() implementation

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: <1FE6DD409037234FAB833C420AA843ECF237C0@orsmsx424.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:16:55 -0700
From:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	"Matthew Wilcox" <matthew@....cx>,
	"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	"Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: down_spin() implementation

> So it makes little sense to add this to semaphores.  Better to introduce
> a spinaphore, as you say.

> struct {
>   atomic_t cur;
>   int max;
> } ss_t;

Could this API sneak into the bottom of one or the other of
linux/include/{spinlock,semaphore}.h ... or should it get its own
spinaphore.h file?

Or should I follow Alan's earlier advice and keep this as an ia64
only thing (since I'll be the only user).

-Tony
--
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/