linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] mutex: add mutex_lock

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: <48B45A48.6080604@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:32:24 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mutex: add mutex_lock_timeout()


Daniel,

My decision on this patchkit is to reject it for now, because:

- I'm worried about the long term maintenance impact of doing full
lockdep checking on AML controlled locks. Since I'm keeping ACPI
only temporarily I don't want to leave an potentially problematic
legacy.
- I fail to see the advantage of implementing semaphores using conditions.

However what you can do is to ask Len again when he's back. Ultimately
it is his decision and he might decide that he can deal with AML lockdep
issues longer term.

Don't think it makes all that much sense to resubmit the completion
patch though. It's unrelated to the other patches anyways (not sure
why you mix them together)

-Andi
--
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/