linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v9 00/31] use lmb with x86

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: <4BB13BF4.3030906@kernel.org>
Date:	Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:47:00 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
CC:	michael@...erman.id.au, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v9 00/31] use lmb with x86

On 03/29/2010 04:29 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:17 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> That was the point of my other mail. We now have two lmb APIs, one
>> which
>>> checks if the array will overflow and one which doesn't. That seems
>> like
>>> a bad idea. Having one called lmb_free() and one called free_lmb()
>> is
>>> definitely a bad idea, because it's completely non obvious which one
>>> caters for overflow.
>>
>> I want to keep the affects to other lmb users to minium at first.
>>
>> and we can merge those functions later.
>>
>> or you insist on merging them in this patchset?
> 
> As a separate patch sure, but you should really separate the patch
> series that changes LMB from the one that moves x86 to it imho. It would
> make things much clearer.

Those patches should go through tip/x86 ?

Please check the patches only have "lmb:" in the subject.

> 
> It would also allow you to spend some time properly -documenting- why
> you need to change LMB the way you do, since it's non obvious for those
> not familiar with x86 needs. I'm not objecting to the changes, I'm just
> asking for much better documentation as to why they are needed and what
> function they provide.

Thanks, will try to write more changelog for next reversion.

Yinghai
--
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/