linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] workqueue: convert to raw_spinlock

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: <20190626140112.GU657710@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jun 2019 07:01:12 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] workqueue: convert to raw_spinlock_t

Hello,

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 03:53:43PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I don't now what to make of the series.  AFAICS, there's no benefit to
> > mainline.  What am I missing?
> 
> there is no downside either, right?

Sure, but that usually isn't enough for merging patches, right?

> It helps with the ongoing RT integration into the mainline kernel and we
> would appreciate if we can get the non controversial bits an pieces sorted.

I see.  I understand the intention and it was a lot clearer when the
changes were beneficial to mainline kernel too and I'm not sure this
is a decision we wanna make per-subsystem.  Maybe I'm just out of
loop.  Are we generally doing this?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun