linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 15/19] locking/lockdep: Remove __cq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHttsravNVDC882277Vwqif3oicHUnixj7NuTjNE2AL0V5cpwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Mar 2019 10:30:50 +0800
From:   Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, will.deacon@....com, mingo@...nel.org,
        ming.lei@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/19] locking/lockdep: Remove __cq_empty()

Thanks for review.

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 00:54, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
>
> This is the most important change in this patch. Using the title "Remove __cq_empty()"
> for this patch is misleading because the above patch does something else, namely changing
> the return type of __cq_dequeue() from int into a pointer. Should this patch perhaps be
> split or should the __cq_empty() removal be left out from this patch?

I actually hesitated whether _cq_full() should be inlined as well.
Having said that, let me keep both of them and just change the return
type of __cq_dequeue().

Thanks,
Yuyang