linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm resend] cpuhotplug: introduce try_get_online

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:	Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:41:42 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	ego@...ibm.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	oleg@...hat.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm resend] cpuhotplug: introduce try_get_online_cpus()
 take 3

Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> I still think we should really avoid having to do this.  trylocks are
> nasty things.
> 
> Looking at the above, one would think that a correct fix would be to fix
> the bug in "thread 2": take the locks in the correct order?  As
> try_get_online_cpus() doesn't actually have any callers, it's hard to
> take that thought any further.
> 
> 

Sometimes, we can not reorder the locks' order.
try_get_online_cpus() is really needless when no one uses it.

Paul's expedited RCU V7 may need it:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/22/332

So this patch can be omitted when Paul does not use it.
It's totally OK for me.

Lai

--
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/