linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET percpu/for-3.17] percpu: clean up percpu accessor and operation definitions

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140619210917.GC9814@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:09:17 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET percpu/for-3.17] percpu: clean up percpu accessor and
 operation definitions

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 04:05:29PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> > >   linus master c31c24b8251f ("Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rzhang/linux")
> > > + [1] [PATCH RFC] percpu: add data dependency barrier in percpu accessors and operations
> >
> > Omitted the data dependency barrier and applied the series to
> > percpu/for-3.17.
> 
> Ok I hope all of that dependency material is removed from the tree?

Hmmm?  There was one RFC patch which I didn't apply.  I'm leaning
towards just clearly documenting the init write ownership because that
seems more consistent but seriously no matter which way we go there's
*no* performance implication.  I don't get why you're so fixated about
it.

-- 
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/