linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] locking/rwsem: Convert rwsem count to atomic_long

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]

Date:	Tue, 17 May 2016 10:06:44 -0700
From:	Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	jason.low2@...com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
	Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
	Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@....com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] locking/rwsem: Convert rwsem count to
 atomic_long_t

On Tue, 2016-05-17 at 13:09 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 06:12:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Jason Low <jason.low2@....com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This rest of the series converts the rwsem count variable to an atomic_long_t
> > > since it is used it as an atomic variable. This allows us to also remove
> > > the rwsem_atomic_{add,update} abstraction and reduce 100+ lines of code.
> > 
> > I would suggest you merge all the "remove rwsem_atomic_{add,update}"
> > patches into a single patch.
> > 
> > I don't see the advantage to splitting those up by architecture, and
> > it does add noise to the series.
> > 
> > Other than that it all looks fine to me.
> 
> OK, done.

Right, they all fit under the same category of "Removing
rwsem_atomic_{add,update}", so it makes sense to fold them into one
patch.

Thanks,
Jason