linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 05/14] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature

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: <20170810013054.GW20323@X58A-UD3R>
Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:30:54 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, walken@...gle.com,
        boqun.feng@...il.com, kirill@...temov.name,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, npiggin@...il.com,
        kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 05/14] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature

On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 04:05:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 04:12:52PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> > index fffe49f..0c8a1b8 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> > @@ -467,6 +520,49 @@ static inline void lockdep_on(void)
> >  
> >  #endif /* !LOCKDEP */
> >  
> > +enum context_t {
> > +	HARD,
> > +	SOFT,
> > +	PROC,
> > +	CONTEXT_NR,
> > +};
> 
> Since this is the global namespace and those being somewhat generic
> names, I've renamed the lot:
> 
> +enum xhlock_context_t {
> +       XHLOCK_HARD,
> +       XHLOCK_SOFT,
> +       XHLOCK_PROC,
> +       XHLOCK_NR,
> +};

I like it. Thank you.

With a little feedback, it rather makes us a bit confused between
XHLOCK_NR and MAX_XHLOCK_NR. what about the following?

+enum xhlock_context_t {
+       XHLOCK_HARD,
+       XHLOCK_SOFT,
+       XHLOCK_PROC,
+       XHLOCK_CXT_NR,
+};

But it's trivial. I like yours, too.