linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/18] fs: Introduce per-bucket inode hash locks

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1010250900530.3583@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date:	Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:04:53 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] fs: Introduce per-bucket inode hash locks

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Although a sane locking macro and structure like I had, would perfectly
> > allow you to switch locks in a single place just the same.
> 
> And a locking macro/structure is better in self documenting than a
> helper function which was proposed by Christoph?

Independently of what data structure you folks agree on, we really do
_NOT_ want to have open coded bit_spin_*lock() anywhere in the code.

As I said before, aside of RT it's a basic requirement to switch bit
spinlocks to real ones for lockdep debugging.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/