linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] rhashtable: don't hold lock on first table throughout insertion.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:18:15 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] rhashtable: don't hold lock on first table
 throughout insertion.

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:04:37AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> 
> >> Looks good ... except ... naming is hard.
> >> 
> >>  is_after_call_rcu_init()  asserts where in the lifecycle we are,
> >>  is_after_call_rcu() tests where in the lifecycle we are.
> >> 
> >>  The names are similar but the purpose is quite different.
> >>  Maybe s/is_after_call_rcu_init/call_rcu_init/ ??
> >
> > How about rcu_head_init() and rcu_head_after_call_rcu()?

Very well, I will pull this change in on my next rebase.

							Thanx, Paul