linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] staging: most: Use 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: <20190706213512.xuyxgvcy7ntn474d@linutronix.de>
Date:   Sat, 6 Jul 2019 23:35:12 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Christian Gromm <christian.gromm@...rochip.com>,
        tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] staging: most: Use spinlock_t instead of struct
 spinlock

On 2019-07-06 12:02:53 [+0200], Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 05:38:00PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > For spinlocks the type spinlock_t should be used instead of "struct
> > spinlock".
> 
> Why?
> 
> > Use spinlock_t for spinlock's definition.
> 
> Why?  I agree it makes the code smaller, but why is this required?

I remember PeterZ pointing out to stick to the typedef and it is
probably better to stick with the typdef since we have it. It was like
that since it was first introduced (2.1.25 for i386).
We have a checkpatch warning for that [0]. 

This series has only 7 patches (excluding the powerpc bits) so almost
everyone else is using just the typdef.

[0] 88982fea52d01 ("checkpatch: warn when declaring "struct spinlock foo;"")
    from Dec 2012

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Sebastian