linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: consolidate lock/unlock into unlock

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: <20160319072425.GB9761@osadl.at>
Date:	Sat, 19 Mar 2016 07:24:25 +0000
From:	Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hofrat@...dl.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: consolidate lock/unlock into unlock_wait

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 03:35:18PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 17:37 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>
> > > The spin_lock()/spin_unlock() is synchronizing on the adapter->work_lock
> > > as the comment also suggests, which is equivalent to spin_unlock_wait()
> > > but the later should be more efficient.
> []
> > There really is no justification for this change.
> > This is an optimization in a slow-path of the driver.
> > The device is a rarely used older piece of hardware.
> 
> It really might be nice to take some of the ancient
> hardware drivers in drivers/net and move them into
> some separate subdirectory like:
> 
> 	drivers/net/ancient
> or
> 	drivers/net/antiques
> or
> 	drivers/net/archaic
> etc...
> 
> so there's some clear designation that these crufty
> old drivers don't need to be touched anymore except
> for maybe when kernel wide changes occur.
>
actually thats just the problem - some of those did not
perform such kernel wide changes lock/unlock -> unlock_wait
being one of them. But having a distinction as proposed to
keep people like me from scanning them, sounds like a good idea.

Will add an "age of code" check before submitting API cleanups.

thx!
hofrat