linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] stop_machine: check work->done while handling enqueued works

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 7 Feb 2013 20:13:44 +0800
From:	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] stop_machine: check work->done while handling
 enqueued works

Hello Tejun

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>> @@ -279,8 +281,6 @@ repeat:
>>               preempt_disable();
>>
>>               ret = fn(arg);
>> -             if (ret)
>> -                     done->ret = ret;
>
> If this is meant as a pure cleanup, I'm not sure it's an improvement.
> You own your cpu_stop_done until you call cpu_stop_signal_done() on
> it, so I don't think there's anything wrong with the current code.
> The new code is different, not necessarily better.

The comment just above cpu_stop_signal_done()
says it is not certain that the input done is valid, so
I did this work.
Plus works enqueued through stop_one_cpu_nowait()
do carry no done.

Hillf
--
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/