linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] UBI: Fastmap: Ensure that only one fastmap work is scheduled

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: <542A54E4.2060407@nod.at>
Date:	Tue, 30 Sep 2014 08:59:48 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	"Bityutskiy, Artem" <artem.bityutskiy@...el.com>
CC:	"dedekind1@...il.com" <dedekind1@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] UBI: Fastmap: Ensure that only one fastmap work is
 scheduled

Am 30.09.2014 08:45, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem:
> On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 00:20 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> +       spin_lock(&ubi->wl_lock);
>> +       ubi->fm_work_scheduled = 0;
>> +       spin_unlock(&ubi->wl_lock);
> 
> Andrew Morton once said me that if I am protecting an integer change
> like this with a spinlock, I have a problem in my locking design. He was
> right for my particular case.
> 
> Integer is changes atomic. The only other thing spinlock adds are the
> barriers.

I've added the spinlock to have a barrier in any case.

Thanks,
//richard
--
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/