linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 1/6] powerpc: atomic: Make *xchg and *cmpxchg a full barrier

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:43:58 +1100
From:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 1/6] powerpc: atomic: Make *xchg and *cmpxchg
 a full barrier

On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 11:33 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 05:26:53PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Michael and Peter, rest of this patchset depends on commits which are
> > currently in the locking/core branch of the tip, so I would like it as a
> > whole queued there. Besides, I will keep this patch Cc'ed to stable in
> > future versions, that works for you both?
> 
> From my POV having the Cc stable in there is fine if Michael actually
> wants them to go there. GregKH will vacuum them up once they hit Linus'
> tree and we don't need to think about it anymore.

Yeah that's fine by me. Here's an Ack if you want one:

Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>

> Alternatively, Michael could put the patch in a separate branch and we
> could both merge that.
> 
> Or even, seeing how its a single patch and git mostly does the right
> thing, we could just merge it independently in both trees and let git
> sort it out at merge time.

That probably would work, but I don't think it's necessary.

My tree doesn't get much (or any) more testing than linux-next, so as long as
locking/core is in linux-next then it will be tested just fine that way.

cheers


--
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/