linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 26/28] locking/lockdep: Remove _

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: <CAHttsrZhswsrNywoC0gQk4n+VTPPM=xvSPeJy_Tp92pEojzVQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:35:46 +0800
From:   Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     will.deacon@....com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, ming.lei@...hat.com,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/28] locking/lockdep: Remove __bfs

Thanks for review.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 04:07, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 06:19:32PM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > Since there is no need for backward dependecy searching, remove this
> > extra function layer.
>
> OK, so $subject confused the heck out of me, I thought you were going to
> remove the whole bfs machinery. May I suggest retaining
> __bfs_backwards() in the previous patch (which I'm _waay_ to tired for
> to look at now) and calling this patch: "Remove __bfs_backwards()".

Sure thing.