| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:55:01 +1100 From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> Cc: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: blk_throtl_exit taking q->queue_lock is problematic On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:10:29 -0500 Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote: > So is it possible to keep the spinlock intact when md is calling up > blk_cleanup_queue()? > It would be possible, yes - but messy. I would probably end up just making ->queue_lock always point to __queue_lock, and then only take it at the places where I call 'block' code which wants to test to see if it is currently held (like the plugging routines). The queue lock (and most of the request queue) is simply irrelevant for md. I would prefer to get away from having to touch it at all... I'll see how messy it would be to stop using it completely and it can just be __queue_lock. Though for me - it would be much easier if you just used __queue_lock ..... NeilBrown -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists