linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] pps: Use a single cdev

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: <20130213183529.27043.qmail@science.horizon.com>
Date:	13 Feb 2013 13:35:29 -0500
From:	"George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com>
To:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux@...izon.com
Cc:	giometti@...ux.it, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, peter@...leysoftware.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] pps: Use a single cdev

> You forgot a Signed-off-by: line for this patch, so I can't apply it, or
> the 9/9 patch :(

Oops, fixed.  I don't see why the 9/9 patch depends on it,
though.  They're not related or interdependent in any way.

If you want to check the logic, I'd appreciate it.  I'm not
really sure about the RCU stuff.  My understanding is that:
- the idr code does the appropriate write locking when
  modifying itself, so I don't need to do any.
- The pps_device returned from idr_find is itself refcounted,
  so it can't go away, and the accesses don't have bo be
  inside the RCU read "lock".  It's only the IDR's internal
  index nodes that might get reallocated by modificaitons of
  a different part of the tree.

> Care to resend just these two after fixing this up?

I can, but if you think you need 9/9 resent (which *did* have a S-o-b),
I'm confused and wonder why...
--
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/