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: <1219780298.3797.24.camel@dhcp32.mvista.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:51:38 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.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()

On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 21:32 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 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 think we have to allow some testing before there could be claim that
there would be a major problem.

> 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.

For instance these changes could go into linux-next until the 2.6.29
merge window .. Len should be back by then, and we should have a much
better idea what kind of problems may exist, if any..

> 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)

It's all related .. I removed the semaphores in ACPI which are actually
mutexes in the first three patches. Your left with only semaphores that
are locked.. Locked semaphores are really completions, so it's natural
to convert them.

I would have liked to change the name in ACPI from "semaphore" to
"completion" , but you and Bob seemed to have some serious objections to
it, w.r.t other operating systems that are using that ACPI code.

Daniel

--
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/