linux-kernel - Re: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] module: Remove stop

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: <5446432A.8060204@hitachi.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Oct 2014 20:27:38 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] module: Remove stop_machine from module
 unloading

(2014/10/13 13:40), Rusty Russell wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * MODULE_REF_BASE must be 1, since we use atomic_inc_not_zero() for
>> + * recovering refcnt (see try_release_module_ref() ).
>> + */
>> +#define MODULE_REF_BASE	1
> 
> True, but we could use atomic_add_unless() instead, and make this
> completely generic, right?

Ah, I got it. You might mean replacing atomic_inc_not_zero() in try_release_module_ref
with atomic_add_unless(), then we don't need to make MODULE_REF_BASE=1, is that right?

Thank you,


-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com


--
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/