linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5 v2: 00/19] staging: lustre: use standard wait

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: <20180108145943.GA5761@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:59:43 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc:     Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lustre <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5 v2: 00/19] staging: lustre: use standard wait_event
 macros

On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:28:13PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> Hi,
>  this is a revised version of the patch series I sent under a similar
>  subject in mid December.
>  Improvements are:
>    - new wait_event_idle* macros are now in include/linux/wait.h which
>      Ack from peterz.
>    - *all* waits are now TASK_IDLE or TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and so don't
>      affect the load average.  There is no need to choose whether load
>      is appropriate or not in each case.
>    - all l_wait_event() users are handled so l_wait_event() is
>      removed.  The one case I had left out before uses
>      wait_event_idle_exclusive() with and option of using
>      wait_event_idle_exclusive_lifo() is that ever gets approved.
> 
>  I think this set is ready to go.
>  If you only review two patches, please review
> 
>     staging: lustre: simplify waiting in ldlm_completion_ast()
> and
>     staging: lustre: remove back_to_sleep()
> 
>  as in both of those, the actual behaviour of the current code (as I
>  understand it) doesn't seem to agree with comments/debug message, or
>  just generally looks odd.

This series broke the build, so I'll roll back my tree and drop it.

Please fix it up and resend and test build it first...

thanks,

greg k-h