linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] async: fix __lowest_in

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+55aFxfheczjP22pESE7zXS1hnK3=mOgcGjMHDeoQ2W4D0MDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:16:50 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
	Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@...il.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] async: fix __lowest_in_progress()

Tejun, mind explaining this one a bit more to me?

If ordering matters, and we have a running queue and a pending queue,
how could the pending queue *ever* be lower than the running one?

That implies that something was taken off the pending queue and put on
the running queue out of order, right?

And that in turn implies that there isn't much of a "lowest" ordering
at all, so how could anybody even care about what lowest is? It seems
to be a meaningless measure.

So with that in mind, I don't see what semantics the first part of the
patch fixes. Can you explain more?

               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/