linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bonding:avoid repeated display of same link status change

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]

Date:   Tue, 23 Oct 2018 18:26:14 +0200
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Mahesh Bandewar
         (महेश बंडेवार) <maheshb@...gle.com>, mk.singh@...cle.com,
        linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding:avoid repeated display of same link status change

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:10:44AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/23/2018 08:54 AM, Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) wrote:
> 
> > Atomic operations are expensive (on certain architectures) and miimon
> > runs quite frequently. Is the added cost of these atomic operations
> > even worth just to avoid *duplicate info* messages? This seems like a
> > overkill!
> 
> atomic_read() is a simple read, no atomic operation involved.
> 
> Same remark for atomic_set()

Which makes me wonder if the patch really needs atomic_t.

Michal Kubecek