linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] locking: qspinlock

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: <5320AEE0.7070600@hp.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:00:48 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, arnd@...db.de,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, walken@...gle.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
	riel@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] locking: qspinlock

On 03/12/2014 02:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:17:46PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Except that I do a single atomic short integer write to switch the bits
>> instead of 2 byte write.
> D'0h why didn't I think of that. A single short write is much better
> than the 2 byte writes.
>
> In any case; can you try and keep the structure in this patch-set if you
> post another version? It takes a lot of effort to unravel your
> all-in-one patch.

I didn't have time to fully review and test your changes yet. So I just 
post a new series of what I currently have right now. I will certainly 
do the testing on your patches.

-Longman
--
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/