linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Allow rwlocks to re-enable interrupts

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]

Date:	Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:05:11 -0600
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, tee@....com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Allow rwlocks to re-enable interrupts

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 07:24:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > No problem. I could then also use it for _spin_lock_irqsave, if the
> > answer to the above question is use CONFIG_LOCK_STAT there as well.
> 
> If you create LOCK_CONTEDED_FLAGS() the whole issue goes away nicely.

Should it also be used for _spin_lock_irq()?  I'm puzzled why it's only
used for _irqsave().

(should _spin_lock_bh() re-enable BHs while waiting?  Is it just not big
enough of a deal?)

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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/