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: <87r2v0d5zi.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:34:57 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Anju T Sudhakar <anju@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, hemant@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        anju@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/perf: Fix for core/nest imc call trace on cpuhotplug

Anju T Sudhakar <anju@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> Nest/core pmu units are enabled only when it is used. A reference count is
> maintained for the events which uses the nest/core pmu units. Currently in
> *_imc_counters_release function a WARN() is used for notification of any
> underflow of ref count. Replace WARN() with a pr_info since it is an overkill.

As discussed elsewhere this is not the right solution.

If it's OK for the reference count to be negative, then we shouldn't
print anything when it is.

But I don't understand how it can be OK for the refcount to be negative.
That means someone has a negative number of references to something?

cheers

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ