linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] lockdep: initialize lockdep debugging statistics

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: <49B0F579.2030903@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:05:45 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] lockdep: initialize lockdep debugging statistics

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 13:57 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
>> It shouldn't be dropped, the initialization is necessary because we can't 
>> rely on atomic_t's implementation.
> 
> I'm a bit slow, please use more words and explain this to me.
> 

I once was also (and is still not sure) wondering if it's better to use
INIT_HLIST_HEAD() for initialization for the reason David is claiming..

The situation is similar with this ATOMIC_INIT(), that INIT_HLIST_HEAD()
just set 2 pointers to 0, and not every user of hlist calls this INIT()
at initialization phase.

But I'll definitely on David's side if it's not kernel project.

> Before replying please read:
> 
> ea435467500612636f8f4fb639ff6e76b2496e4b
> 
> and stare at the output of:
> 
> git grep "define[ \t]*ATOMIC_INIT\>"
> 

--
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/