| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20141027132047.GE4436@htj.dyndns.org> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:20:47 -0400 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] workqueue: extend wq_pool_mutex to also protect pwq-installation Hello, Lai. On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:53:32AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > Athough pwq-installation without wq_pool_mutex held is not bug, > but it is not good design, it is better to make the pwq-allocation and installation > are in the (same) wq_pool_mutex. WHY? Why is that not a good design and why is extending the locking a better thing to do? Can you elaborate the reasoning here? > And since the pwq-allocation and installation are in the same wq_pool_mutex, > get_online_cpus() will not be needed for this reason, and it will be remove > in later patch. So, if this enables further cleanup, it's fine, but please just stick to those reasons. You do this a lot. You wanna do A because of B but the changelog often doesn't mention that at all and just goes "This is bad so change this to be better" without any proper reasoning. If you want to do A to achieve B later, just say so. Thanks. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists