linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/23] rcu: Prevent initialization-time quiescent-state race

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: <1346948545.18408.37.camel@twins>
Date:	Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:22:25 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	sbw@....edu, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/23] rcu: Prevent initialization-time
 quiescent-state race

On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 09:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 04:21:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 11:19 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > I tried that, and got a surprisingly large set of conflicts.  Ah, OK,
> > > the problem is that breaking up rcu_gp_kthread() into subfunctions
> > > did enough code motion to defeat straightforward rebasing.  Is there
> > > some way to tell "git rebase" about such code motion, or would this
> > > need to be carried out carefully by hand? 
> > 
> > The alternative is doing that rebase by hand and in the process make
> > that code movement patch (6) obsolete by making patches (1) and (3)
> > introduce the code in the final form :-)
> > 
> > Yay for less patches :-)
> 
> Actually, my original intent was that patches 1-6 be one patch.
> The need to locate a nasty bug caused me to split it up.  So the best
> approach is to squash patches 1-6 together with the related patches.

I didn't mind the smaller steps, but patches like 6 which move newly
introduced code around are weird. As are patches fixing bugs introduced
in previous patches (of the same series).
--
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/