linux-kernel - Re: [cpuops cmpxchg V2 5/5] cpuops: Use cmpxchg for xchg to avoid lock semantics

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: <4D08EF4E.8070403@kernel.org>
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:39:42 +0100
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [cpuops cmpxchg V2 5/5] cpuops: Use cmpxchg for xchg to avoid
 lock semantics

Hello,

On 12/15/2010 05:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I think we can do that... let me look through the tree first officially
> committing.  Alternatively, I can pull the patches from your tree and
> individually review them and add them to a tip branch, if you prefer.

I'd prefer percpu things going through percpu tree, if for nothing
else for git history's sake, but I don't think it really matters.  The
series is spread all over the place anyway.  As long as each
maintainer is properly alerted about the changes, it should be okay.
Please let me know whether you agree with the changes currently queued
in percpu#for-next.  I'll update the tree with your Acked-by's and
freeze it.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/