| 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: Wed, 9 May 2012 10:41:14 -0700 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Lockdep false positive in sysfs Hello, On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:53:11PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 7 May 2012, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 05:51:52PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > I guess in the end it's a question of balance. Which has more > > > overhead, adding a few function calls here and there, or adding a new > > > flags field to every struct attribute? > > > > Yes, and there are different types of overheads. I'm happy to trade > > some runtime memory overhead under debugging mode for lower code > > complexity. Lock proving is pretty expensive anyway. I don't think > > there's much point in trying to optimize some bytes from struct > > attributes. > > Okay, then what do you think about this approach? It does seem smaller > and simpler than the previous attempt. > > And I did try to avoid unnecessary bloat; if lockdep isn't being used > then the extra attribute flag isn't present. Yeap, looks good to me. Thanks. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists