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]

Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:09:56 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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 05:06:16PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.

Apologies, I will merge them.

							Thanx, Paul