linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking: ww_mutex: Allow to use rt

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: <54F99F36.4030405@linutronix.de>
Date:	Fri, 06 Mar 2015 13:36:06 +0100
From:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking: ww_mutex: Allow to use rt_mutex instead
 of mutex for the baselock

On 03/06/2015 01:16 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:

>> Okay so what I the point made here? It is only about the config option,
>> right? What are the preferences here:
>> [ ] yes, the way it is now
> Is my personal preference, but I'm not a locking expert(TM).

Lets see what Mike says. I currently don't see any reason for people to
switch between both implementations except for testing. And if it
remains hidden then nobody changing code ww_mutex tests against
rt_mutex. That way there is hope :)

Sebastian
--
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/