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]

Date:   Thu, 13 Jun 2019 11:33:45 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        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, Jun 12, 2019 at 01:56:27PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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 :)

Sure that works, I don't think there's anything else pending for this
file to conflict with.

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>