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]

Date:	Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:52:11 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: remove byte locks

Jiri Kosina wrote:
> Why can't this just be somewhere in documentation? (possibly even with the 
> byte locks code as a reference).
>   

Because Ingo's compil-o-matic will never fail on a documentation error.

> It is IMHO just totally confusing to have a spinlock implementation that 
> is not used at all in the tree. It took me quite some time to go through 
> this until I finally figured out that this code is actually never used. 
> Currently, on first sight it might seem that byte locks are used whenever 
> CONFIG_PARAVIRT is set, which is not true.
>   

Well, a comment next to the code explaining the rationale probably 
wouldn't go astray.

> And apparently even Linus got confused by this, which also tells us 
> something by itself, see [1].
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123144211719754&w=2
>   

It tells us that Linus couldn't give a rat's arse about virtualization, 
which is just something we have to cope with ;)

    J
--
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/