linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] locking changes for v5.2

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: <20190506194339.GA20938@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 May 2019 21:43:39 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman9394@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] locking changes for v5.2


* Waiman Long <longman9394@...il.com> wrote:

> On 5/6/19 4:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Linus,
> >
> > Please pull the latest locking-core-for-linus git tree from:
> >
> >    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking-core-for-linus
> >
> >    # HEAD: d671002be6bdd7f77a771e23bf3e95d1f16775e6 locking/lockdep: Remove unnecessary unlikely()
> >
> > [ Dependency note: this tree depends on commits also in the RCU tree, 
> >   please disregard this pull request if you weren't able to pull the RCU 
> >   tree for some reason. ]
> >
> > Here are the locking changes in this cycle:
> >
> >  - rwsem unification and simpler micro-optimizations to prepare for more 
> >    intrusive (and more lucrative) scalability improvements in v5.3
> >    (Waiman Long)
> 
> Is it possible to pull in also my "locking/rwsem: Prevent decrement of
> reader count before  increment" patch for 5.2? The rests can wait until 5.3.

Sure - how close is this to a straight:

	git revert 70800c3c0cc5

?

If it's close enough then please resubmit this as a 'Revert "..."' patch, 
which I'll queue up in locking/urgent.

It also is a performance, not a correctness fix, and should probably get 
a Cc: stable as well, right?

In any case it doesn't directly affect the locking/core bits pull request 
for Linus, 70800c3c0cc5 is already upstream.

Thanks,

	Ingo