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  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:   Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:12:15 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <>
To:     Tejun Heo <>
cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <>,
        Lai Jiangshan <>,, Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] workqueue: convert to raw_spinlock_t


On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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?

Depends :)
> > 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?

We are working hard to get the remaining pieces in and to the best of my
knowledge there is no hard resistance against merging them.

What we are trying at the moment is to reduce the surface of the bulk of RT
changes and get the 'innocent' ones in. If you feel more comfortable, then
we can surely redo the series and pick 1,2,6 for now and keep 3-5 for the
final submission.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists