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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 19:15:55 +0200 From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] workqueue lockdep limitations/bugs Hi Tejun, > > Let's say we again have an ordered workqueue, and the following: > > > > work1_function > > { > > mutex_lock(&mutex); > > } > > Regular mutexes complain when the locker isn't the unlocker already. > Do we really care about this case? Oh, sorry for the confusion. I was just eliding the - not very interesting for this case - unlock. Really I should've typed up a lock/unlock pair in all of the examples. johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists