linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 25/26] tile: Remove spin_unlock

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: <CA+55aFxf=4+LEk6wSE3HPFdwSf_F0Ny9NRGXaA6daikY+TGbDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:06:16 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 25/26] tile: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
> and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
> pair.  This commit therefore removes the underlying arch-specific
> arch_spin_unlock_wait().

Please don't make this one commit fopr every architecture.

Once something gets removed, it gets removed. There's no point in
"remove it from architecture X". If there are no more users, we're
done with it, and making it be 25 patches with the same commit message
instead of just one doesn't help anybody.

               Linus