linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/11] VFS: Cache request_queue in struct block

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: <20110819162312.GE25996@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:23:12 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	hch@...radead.org, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] VFS: Cache request_queue in struct block_device

> Primarily because of code complexity. We are stashing away a pointer and
> not taking any reference anywhere. So I am not even sure who is making
> sure that request queue is not gone and there are no comments in the code
> about why we are stashing a pointer and how are we making sure that
> request queue is around for the lifetime of bdev.

Can you point out a concrete problem in my approach?  This seems
rather vague.

If you have an alternative way to get the 0.3% I would be also
interested.

-Andi
--
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/