linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] locking/ww_mutex: Extract stamp comparison to __ww_mutex_stamp

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: <20161201144210.GG29430@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Dec 2016 14:42:10 +0000
From:   Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
To:     Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <dev@...ankhorst.nl>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] locking/ww_mutex: Extract stamp comparison to
 __ww_mutex_stamp_after

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:06:46PM +0100, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> From: Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@....com>
> 
> The function will be re-used in subsequent patches.
> 
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <dev@...ankhorst.nl>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
> Signed-off-by: Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@....com>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/mutex.c | 10 ++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index 0afa998..200629a 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -277,6 +277,13 @@ static __always_inline void ww_mutex_lock_acquired(struct ww_mutex *ww,
>  	ww_ctx->acquired++;
>  }
>  
> +static inline bool __sched
> +__ww_mutex_stamp_after(struct ww_acquire_ctx *a, struct ww_acquire_ctx *b)

Should it be ww_mutex_stamp or ww_acquire_stamp / ww_ctx_stamp?

Nothing else operates on the ww_acquire_ctx without a ww_mutex so it
might look a bit odd if it didn't use ww_mutex.

Patch only does what it says on tin, so
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre