linux-kernel - Re: [Bcache v13 07/16] Closures

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: <20120518110247.08696cec@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 18 May 2012 11:02:47 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com, agk@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [Bcache v13 07/16] Closures

> Well, I can definitely understand your reservations about the code; it's
> strange and foreign and complicated. But having beaten my head against
> the various problems and difficulties inherent in asynchronous
> programming for years - well, having found a way to make it sane to me
> it'd be madness to go back.

I think its more of a different paradigm than complicated. The big
question I'd have to ask is how does it fit with hard real time. That is
a big issue given the gradual merging and getting of "hard" real time
into the kernel proper.

In some ways it's not that strange either. A look at what happens on some
of our kref handling in drivers is very similar but hardcoded.

Is the handling of priority inversion within closures a well understood
and solved problem ?

Alan
--
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/