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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:05:54 -0700 From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, mhocko@...e.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:03:26PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: >> +#define RANGE_RWLOCK_INFINITY (~0UL - 1) > >> +#define DEFINE_RANGE_RWLOCK_INF(name) \ >> + struct range_rwlock name = __RANGE_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER(0, RANGE_RWLOCK_INFINITY) > >> +void range_rwlock_init_inf(struct range_rwlock *lock); > >Ayes I'm a pendant, but that's a very small infinity. I always thought >infinity wasn't enumerable. :-) > >Can we think of a different name here? 'whole' / 'all' / 'full' ? Yeah, I guess 'all' is more suitable.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists