linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] locking/pvqspinlock: Add pending bit support

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: <1438627026.17146.14.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date:	Mon, 03 Aug 2015 11:37:06 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] locking/pvqspinlock: Add pending bit support

On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 22:21 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>  /*
> + * Try to acquire the lock and wait using the pending bit
> + */
> +static int pv_pending_lock(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)

Sorry but, why did yo not rewrite the function as we had previously
discussed. This is very confusing to read, the one I suggested follows a
much nicer flow and purposely illustrates the intention. You also failed
to address my loop semantics concerns altogether.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
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/