linux-kernel - Re: [patch v2] LMB: Add basic spin locking to lmb

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: <20080519.192215.193701293.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 19 May 2008 19:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	geoffrey.levand@...sony.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, paulus@...ba.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2] LMB: Add basic spin locking to lmb

From: Geoff Levand <geoffrey.levand@...sony.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 17:55:45 -0700

> Add a spinlock to struct lmb to enforce concurrency in
> lmb_add(), lmb_remove(), lmb_analyze(), lmb_find(), and
> lmb_dump_all().
> 
> This locking is needed for SMP systems that access the lmb structure
> during hot memory add and remove operations after secondary cpus
> have been started.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Geoff Levand <geoffrey.levand@...sony.com>
> ---
> 
> v2: o Add locking to lmb_find().

I'm not against this patch, but I'm pretty sure it's not
necessary.  Isn't memory hotplug already synchronized at
a higher level?

If not, it should be.
--
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/