linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] kernel/locking: #include <asm/spinlock.h> in qrwlock.c

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: <20170503203209.ilcifmyqxkv2igq3@yury-N73SV>
Date:   Wed, 3 May 2017 23:32:09 +0300
From:   Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Adam Wallis <awallis@...eaurora.org>,
        Andrew Pinski <Andrew.Pinski@...ium.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Jan Glauber <jglauber@...ium.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kernel/locking: #include <asm/spinlock.h> in
 qrwlock.c

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 05:05:29PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com> wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/cpumask.h>
> >  #include <linux/percpu.h>
> >  #include <linux/hardirq.h>
> > +#include <asm/spinlock.h>
> 
> linux/spinlock.h?

Comment in include/linux/spinlock.h says:

 * here's the role of the various spinlock/rwlock related include
 * files:
 *
 * on SMP builds:
 *
 [...]
 *  asm/spinlock.h:       contains the arch_spin_*()/etc.  lowlevel
 *                        implementations, mostly inline assembly code
 *

This, and the fact that include/asm-generic/spinlock.h and
arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h doesn't prevent the direct
inclusion means, for me, that I should include asm/spinlock.h,
because of all that I need only arch_spin_lock() and arch_spin_unlock().

Am I wrong?

Yury