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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:15:53 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: use "pool->cpu < 0" to stand for an unbound

On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 03:31:45PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> There is a piece of sanity checks code in the put_unbound_pool().
> The meaning of this code is "if it is not an unbound pool, it will complain
> and return" IIUC. But the code uses "pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED"
> imprecisely due to a non-unbound pool may also have this flags.
> We should use "pool->cpu < 0" to stand for an unbound pool, so we covert the
> code to it.
> There is no strictly wrong if we still keep "pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED"
> here, but it is just a noise if we keep it:
>   1) we focus on "unbound" here, not "[dis]association".
>   2) "pool->cpu < 0" already implies "pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED".
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <>

Applied to wq/for-3.17.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists