linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] irqtime: Remove needless IRQs disablement on kcpustat update

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]

Message-ID: <20160918155425.GP5016@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Sun, 18 Sep 2016 17:54:25 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] irqtime: Remove needless IRQs disablement on
 kcpustat update

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 03:47:43PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> I love that! I've seen so many cases where I wanted this runtime check without
> the overhead of it on production kernels.
> 
> I can take that patch, now since this is lockdep code and my series is scheduler's
> code that depend on it, how can we manage the dependency between the two branches?
> 
> Perhaps I can add the lockdep patch in the series, there will likely be no
> wicked conflicts agains potential changes in the lockdep tree.

Yeah, just take it along with the rest of the patches.