linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcutorture: Fix rcu

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: <20180619221649.GA41539@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:16:49 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcutorture: Fix rcu_barrier successes counter

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 08:41:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:12:23AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:31:15 -0700
> > Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Paul,
> > > Think some more about this counter, I think you mean 'successes' as in
> > > 'successful attempts' than 'successful test' ? If so, then perhaps you can
> > > drop this patch. It wasn't clear to me what the 'successes' meant so I may
> > > have been a bit misled into changing its meaning. If on the other hand, it
> > > means 'successful test', then yes this patch would be Ok then. thanks! -Joel
> > 
> > In either case, it sounds like a comment should be added to clarify
> > what n_barrier_successes actually means ;-)
> 
> Or change the name to n_barrier_attempts.  Except that there already
> is an n_barrier_attempts, and it is incremented on each attempt.
> 
> So perhaps the original patch is on-point.  ;-)

Cool, added a comment just to clarify it and resent the updated patch.

thanks!

 - Joel