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: <4D0A3AF2.50508@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:14:42 +0100
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
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

Hey, again.

On 12/15/2010 05:39 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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.

Are you okay with the patches currently in percpu#for-next?  If so,
I'll regenerate patches with your acked-by and pop the two previously
mentioned commits and proceed with the rest of the series.

Thank you.

-- 
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/