linux-kernel - Re: [tip:locking/core] x86, locking/rwlocks: Enable qrwlocks on x86

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]

Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:59:21 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Cc:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	hpa@...or.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, davej@...hat.com, jeremy@...p.org,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, oleg@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/core] x86, locking/rwlocks: Enable qrwlocks on x86

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:14:11AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 05:20 -0700, tip-bot for Waiman Long wrote:
> > +#if !defined(CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE) && !defined(CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE)
> 
> X86_OOSTORE was removed in v3.14, see commit 09df7c4c8097 ("x86: Remove
> CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE"). So the first test can be removed here, as it will
> always be true. Should I submit the trivial, but probably untested,
> patch to do that or do you prefer to do that yourself?

I was completely unaware of that removal. Yeah, I'll queue patch
removing this new instance of it.

Good to have it gone though, one little crazy less.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped