linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/11] smp: don't warn about csd->flags having CSD_FLAG

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: <20131024093945.GA9433@infradead.org>
Date:	Thu, 24 Oct 2013 02:39:45 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] smp: don't warn about csd->flags having
 CSD_FLAG_LOCK cleared for !wait

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> blk-mq reuses the request potentially immediately, since the most
> cache hot is always given out first. This means that rq->csd could
> be reused between csd->func() being called and csd_unlock() being
> called. This isn't a problem, since we never use wait == 1 for
> the smp call function. Add CSD_FLAG_WAIT to be able to tell the
> difference, retaining the warning for other cases.
> 
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>

Looks fine, but I'd be tempted to just delete the WARN_ON and add a
comment similar to the commit message there.

--
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/