linux-kernel - Re: [patch 02/23] locking: Split rwlock from spinlock headers

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: <200912071828.15280.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Mon, 7 Dec 2009 18:28:15 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Linux-Arch" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 02/23] locking: Split rwlock from spinlock headers

On Sunday 06 December 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> +
> +#ifndef __LINUX_SPINLOCK_H
> +# error "please don't include this file directly"
> +#endif
> +

Hmm, why not? I think it would be nice to have rwlock.h self-contained
to the degree that users of rwlock_t but not spinlock_t only need to
include the rwlock header and vice versa.

Obviously, we'd have to clean up all the ~200 users of rwlock_t before
we're able to remove rwlock.h from spinlock.h, but the other direction
could be done easily.

	Arnd <><
--
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/