linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/async.c:introduce async_schedule*

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: <20090512191848.25764af6@gondolin>
Date:	Tue, 12 May 2009 19:18:48 +0200
From:	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	tom.leiming@...il.com, arjan@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/async.c:introduce async_schedule*_atomic

On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:52:29 +0200,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:

> This division would make more sense indeed.
> 
> - async_schedule_inatomic() would be nosync() and would use
>   GFP_ATOMIC. I guess the case where we want to run
>   a job synchronously from atomic in case of async failure is too rare
>   (non-existent?).

It would add complexity for those callers providing a function that is
safe to be called in both contexts.

> - async_schedule_nosync() would be only nosync() and would use
>   GFP_KERNEL
> 
> I'm not sure the second case will ever be used though.

It might make sense for the "just fail if we cannot get memory" case.

> 
> Another alternative would be to define a single async_schedule_nosync()
> which also takes a gfp flag.

Wouldn't async_schedule() then need a gfp flag as well?
--
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/