linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] ipc/sem: seperate wait-for-zero and alter tasks into seperate queues

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: <51A39E71.70900@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 May 2013 13:57:05 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>, hhuang@...hat.com,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ipc/sem: seperate wait-for-zero and alter tasks into
 seperate queues

On 05/26/2013 05:08 AM, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Introduce seperate queues for operations that do not modify the
> semaphore values.
> Advantages:
> - Simpler logic in check_restart().
> - Faster update_queue(): Right now, all wait-for-zero operations
>    are always tested, even if the semaphore value is not 0.
> - wait-for-zero gets again priority, as in linux <=3.0.9

Whether this complexity is wanted is not for
me to decide, as I am not the ipc/sem.c
maintainer. I'll leave that up to Andrew and Linus.

The code looks correct, though.

Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>

--
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/