linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] swait: add idle to make idle-hacks on kthreads explicit

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:   Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:57:08 +0200
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
        oleg@...hat.com, josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
        ebiederm@...ssion.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] swait: add idle to make idle-hacks on kthreads
 explicit

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 09:48:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 02:45:45PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > In this proper patch form I've made the non-timeout idle swait void.
> > I've also integrated Paul's comment / ident changes, and added documentation
> > as suggested by Boqun.
> > 
> > Let me know if there are issue, otherwise, Paul feel free to take!
> 
> Nice docbook comments!  I replaced my modified commits with your new ones,
> queued for further review and testing.

Great thanks!

> Just out of curiosity, why the three-line swait_event_idle() with the
> "break" statement instead of the two-line version with the inverted
> condition?  (I am fine either way, just curious.)

No strong reason -- just went with what swait.h already used before on
similar condition before, in this case it follows swait_event() model.
In the future it may be possible to share a very nasty macro for both
but since that would involve using a helper function as an argument
I deferred that at this point -- it'd be ugly.

  Luis