linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/5] seqlock consolidation

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: <20120315122112.GB8943@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:21:12 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] seqlock consolidation

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:44:22AM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> Aside of that replacing open coded constructs with proper functions is
> a worthwhile cleanup by itself.

Provided that those are proper primitives to start with...  I don't like
it - most of ->d_lock uses are _not_ related to ->d_seq, to start with
and then we get an interesting mix of functions that do and do not assume
the lock already taken, etc.

Could you describe RT patch problems in more details?  I really don't like
this solution - interface is overcomplicated and doesn't fit well...
--
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/