linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] locking/qspinlock: Re-order code

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: <20181001171703.GD13918@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Oct 2018 18:17:04 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, longman@...hat.com,
        andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] locking/qspinlock: Re-order code

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 01:01:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Flip the branch condition after atomic_fetch_or_acquire(_Q_PENDING_VAL)
> such that we loose the indent. This also result in a more natural code
> flow IMO.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/qspinlock.c |   56 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

I think I actually prefer the current code flow, but that's probably just
because I'm used to it and I don't have a strong opinion about this, so:

Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>

given that this looks correct to me.

Will