linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-tip 2/3] locking/rwsem: move down rwsem_down_read

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: <1b64e661-4f95-9dcf-058b-0cebbcfa7294@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:22:35 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip 2/3] locking/rwsem: move down rwsem_down_read_failed()

On 02/26/2017 01:33 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2017, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> Move the rwsem_down_read_failed() function down to below the
>> optimistic spinning section as it is going to use function in that
>> section in a later patch.
>
> So the title is a bit ambiguous, and I would argue that this
> should be folded into patch 3, and just mention it in the
> changelog.
>
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr

I can reword the title to clarify it a bit more.

The reason why it is a separate patch is because it will make it much
harder to review the third patch otherwise. What you get from the diff
will be a total replacement of one function block by another function
block. I would like to make the review focus on what is actually being
changed.

Cheers,
Longman