linux-kernel - Re: Switching TestSetPageLocked to trylock

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: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808042024480.3299@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 4 Aug 2008 20:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Switching TestSetPageLocked to trylock_page



On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:

> On Thursday 31 July 2008 17:26, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm wondering if I could get a patch merged which changes all
> > TestSetPageLocked and replaces them with trylock_page?
> 
> Yes? No?
> 
> The alternative is try to merge it via -mm or -next, but that just
> wastes everybodies time with conflicts of having these differences
> between -mm and mainline.

Heh. I had just been _assuming_ this would go through -mm, since it's 
exactly the kind of thing that usually does go through there.

So I hadn't even really considered it.

I don't mind the patch per se, but can you give some background on what 
the pending optimization is that makes such a big difference?

		Linus
--
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/