linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/static_key: always define static_branch_deferred

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: <20190612135627.5eac995d@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:56:27 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        peterz@...radead.org
Cc:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/static_key: always define
 static_branch_deferred_inc

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:25:16 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:59 PM Jakub Kicinski
> <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:44:09 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:  
> > > From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> > >
> > > This interface is currently only defined if CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL. Make it
> > > available also when jump labels are disabled.
> > >
> > > Fixes: ad282a8117d50 ("locking/static_key: Add support for deferred static branches")
> > > Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > The original patch went into 5.2-rc1, but this interface is not yet
> > > used, so this could target either 5.2 or 5.3.  
> >
> > Can we drop the Fixes tag?  It's an ugly omission but not a bug fix.
> >
> > Are you planning to switch clean_acked_data_enable() to the helper once
> > merged?  
> 
> Definitely, can do.
> 
> Perhaps it's easiest to send both as a single patch set through net-next, then?

I'd think so too, perhaps we can get a blessing from Peter for that :)