linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: remove byte locks

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: <20090112120743.GC24266@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:07:43 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: remove byte locks


* Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> wrote:

> Remove byte locks implementation, which was introduced by Jeremy in 
> 8efcbab6 ("paravirt: introduce a "lock-byte" spinlock implementation"), 
> but turned out to be dead code that is not used by any in-kernel 
> virtualization guest (Xen uses its own variant of spinlocks implementation 
> and KVM is not planning to move to byte locks).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h      |    2 -
>  arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h      |   66 +--------------------------------
>  arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c |   10 -----
>  3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)

didnt you send a patch in this lkml thread:

  Subject: Re: Is 386 processor still supported?

that makes use of byte-locks on i386 ?

But i guess we should solve M386 and M486 by only allowing it on !SMP, 
hence spinlock support is moot there, right?

	Ingo
--
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/