linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hrtimers: conditionally lock/unlock spinlock in hrtimer_get_next

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: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1406091304140.3830@nanos>
Date:	Mon, 9 Jun 2014 13:06:48 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...dex-team.ru>
cc:	viresh.kumar@...aro.org, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, stuart.w.hayes@...il.com,
	david.vrabel@...rix.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hrtimers: conditionally lock/unlock spinlock in
 hrtimer_get_next_event

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:

> In hrtimer_get_next_event we unconditionally lock/unlock spinlock, even if it's
> not required (hrtimer_hres_active() != 0). This patch moves
> locking/unlocking and mindelta range check inside the if clause,
> so we don't execute unnecessary operations.

What's wrong with simply doing:

       if (!hrtimer_hres_active())
       	  return mindelta;

That saves and indentation level and makes the code more
readable. Also the lockless check wants a comment why it is correct.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/