linux-kernel - Re: Does CONFIG_PARAVIRT imply usage of 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <496AEDE9.9000403@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:14:49 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
CC:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Does CONFIG_PARAVIRT imply usage of byte locks?

Jiri Kosina wrote:
> Avi, are there any plans to make KVM use byte locks implementation for 
> spinlocks in the near future?
>   

No, although I note anything coming out of the spinning mutex discussion 
could be applied towards a sleeping spinlock for paravirt.

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
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/