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, 16 Apr 2008 14:37:32 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>, Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>, Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...eria.de>, Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Replace completions with semaphores * Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 07:05:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > i very much agree with the "get rid of semaphores" argument - the > > reason why i initially supported the "move to generic semaphores" > > step was because i saw it basically as the precursor to full > > removal: it is the removal of semaphores from all architectures - > > with a small generic compatibility wrapper to handle the remaining > > few uses of semaphores. > > Hm. I thought you initially supported it because it deleted so much > code. [...] ... sorry, but i always thought of semaphores to be removed completely. > [...] I don't want to go and add down_killable() to each architecture > again, and you were pretty enthusiastic about adding down_killable(). ... the killable sleeps should and are already propagated everywhere - i never thought of them as a semaphore-only feature. killable sleeps are probably the next best thing to true interruptability. btw., has anyone thought about killable sync/fsync syscalls - would that surprise too many programs? > > i got thoroughly surprised by the "increase the scope of semaphores" > > angle to the patchset though, and in hindsight i'd rather see > > neither of those generalizations and see semaphores die a slow but > > sure natural death than to see their prolongation :-/ > > I'm fully in favour of reducing the number of semaphore users, and > eventually eliminating them. Arjan and I discussed a way to do that > just now ... I'll write some code, see how it looks. cool! Ingo -- 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