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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20180405085620.GA6079@andrea> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:56:21 +0200 From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>, Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>, Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] locking: Document the semantics of spin_is_locked() On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 12:47:49AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Can't we just kill off spin_is_locked? It seems pretty much all uses > should simply be replaced with lockdep annotations, and there aren't > many to start with. Yeah, this is not the first time such a question has been raised ;) In fact, some people (see, e.g., Peter's comment in this thread) have also suggested extending it to {mutex,rwsem,bit_spin}_is_locked (the number of uses would then increase to a few hundreds, and lockdep would need some extensions...). Of course, removing the docbook headers should not cause particular trouble, once/if the removal of these primitives will be realized... ;) Andrea >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists