linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/14] locking/atomic: import atomic_dec_not

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, 31 Jan 2017 20:17:22 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] locking/atomic: import atomic_dec_not_zero()

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 06:41:28PM +0100, Fabian Frederick wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 31 January 2017 at 11:41 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 07:39:38PM +0100, Fabian Frederick wrote:
> > > complementary definition to atomic_inc_not_zero() featured in
> > > lib/fault-inject.c
> >
> > Why?
> 
> Maybe this commit message should be ok ?
> 
> complementary definition to atomic_inc_not_zero() featured in lib/fault-inject.c
> and is more readable than atomic_add_unless((v), -1, 0) used in different
> places.

I still don't see why such a primitive makes sense. Yes there's a few
usage sites, but from them I don't see a sensible pattern.

What sane pattern desires this?