linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Driver for Freescale 8610 and 5121 DIU

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:	Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:43:32 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To:	Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>
CC:	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	York Sun <yorksun@...escale.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Driver for Freescale 8610 and 5121 DIU

On 04/14/2008 04:49 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 04/14/2008 04:12 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, the author of the patch, York, is out this week, so I'll have to
>>> take care of this.  It'd be easier to modify rh_alloc() so that it doesn't
>>> sleep, so that's what I'm going to do.
>> Anyway, why do you need the spin lock there (and not mutex)? 
> 
> I don't know.  A spinlock just seemed obvious.  Why would I prefer a mutex?

Mainly because you can sleep inside locked mutex and because spinlock shouldn't
be used for too many lines of code (busy waiting etc.). I think ldd3 will be
more descriptive than me here :).

--
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/