linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] ipc/sem.c: convert undo structures to struct list

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: <484A9FAB.5090202@colorfullife.com>
Date:	Sat, 07 Jun 2008 16:48:11 +0200
From:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:	Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ipc/sem.c: convert undo structures to struct list_head

Nadia Derbey wrote:
> Manfred Spraul wrote:
>> The undo structures contain two linked lists, the
>> attached patch replaces them with generic struct list_head lists.
>
> If I'm not wrong the undo list is a singly-linked list.
> So here we are moving from a set of 4 pointers to a set of 8 pointers.
> It's true that this makes the code much much more readable and clear, 
> but I was wondering if it's worth?
>
IMHO yes: Everything is allocated on demand and memory is not that 
expensive.

With regard to the asserts: I'm a big fan of asserts, I usually use them 
to document the locking.
Perhaps assert_spin_locked() should evalute to a nop() for 
non-CONFIG_DEBUG builds?

--
    Manfred
--
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/