linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/18] x86/ticketlock: Use C for __ticket_spin

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: <CA+55aFzN8753+nnfk11uf_vv1JddQSh3ZRe9-cpe+e5UmhmWtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:01:52 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/18] x86/ticketlock: Use C for __ticket_spin_unlock

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
>
> If we don't need to use a locked inc for unlock, then implement it in C.

Ok, so I really hate this patch.

What the f&*^ is the point of doing it this way? It just ends up being
incredibly ugly, with a mixture of C, asm, and barriers. The "C"
version is actually *uglier* than the non-C version, so why do it in C
at all?

Just get rid of this one.  It adds lines of code, makes the code
harder to read, and is just a disaster.

                        Linus
--
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/