| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:32:14 -0400 From: Pavel Roskin <proski@....org> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Josh Triplett <josht@...ibm.com> Subject: [PATCH TRY2] locking: annotate inline spinlocks and rwlocks on SMP Hello! My patch at https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/84441/ didn't get any replies. Bogus sparse warnings actually make developers change spin_lock() to spin_lock_irqsave() to placate sparse, as it could be seen here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=126954991321895&w=2 That's a patch I noticed because I read linux-wireless. I think it's a safe bet that it's not the only patch inspired by the bogus sparse warnings. Locking is hard already, and we don't want sparse to confuse developers even more. Linux code quality suffers because of that. If there are any people or lists I should forward my patch to, please let me know. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists