| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 11:01:28 -0400 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>, Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] workqueues: Account unbound workqueue in a seperate list Hello, On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:48:28PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > Wouldn't the right thing to do would be factoring out > > apply_workqueue_attrs_locked()? It's cleaner to block out addition of > > new workqueues while the masks are being updated anyway. > > I'm not quite sure I get what you suggest. Do you mean have > apply_workqueue_attrs_locked() calling apply_workqueue_attrs() under > the lock on this patch? Not sure it still matters but I was suggesting that creating apply_workqueue_attrs_locked() which requires the caller to handle locking and making apply_workqueue_attrs() a wrapper which grabs and releases lock around it, and using the former in locked iteration would work. lol has this explanation made it any clearer or is it even worse now? :) Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists