linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] SCSI host lock push-down

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 07 Nov 2010 11:57:03 -0500
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
CC:	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] SCSI host lock push-down

On 11/07/2010 03:24 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> Well now isn't that simple? One nit for me though.
> I would like to see a more scary name for above something like:
> DEF_SCSI_QCMD_WITH_LOCKING or
> DEF_SCSI_QCMD_OLD_WAY

I don't have a real preference; whatever the community prefers.  Maybe I 
would suggest DEF_SCSI_QCMD_LOCKER.


> Something that calls for a cleanup and removal the first time
> the driver is touched.
>
> Otherwise I think this is the only form that should make it safe
> for this Kernel.
>
> (The rename could be nice also though it is one additional hunk in
>   each driver. Did you use a script to produce this?)

No script; a few vim macros helped a bit.  I wanted to actually examine 
each callsite, to get a feel of the locking scheme, and make sure my 
change was truly an equivalent-transformation.

	Jeff



--
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/