linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spinlock: Get rid of spin_can

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:27:44 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, Waiman.Long@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spinlock: Get rid of spin_can_lock()

On Wed, 01 Jun 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 06:54:02AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> ... it has no users and we already have the the regular spin_is_lock()
>> call anyway -- although iirc this was going to be different
>> than the simple negation for lock elision implementations. Lets drop it.
>
>What about {read,write}_can_lock() ? those look equally unused and
>borken.

Hmm so the break_lock thingie for archs that don't have ticket locks (or
queued obviously) want to use these, mainly for is_contended() usage afaict.