linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/8] sched/core: Streamlining calls to task_rq

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:   Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:31:31 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, mingo@...hat.com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, tj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
        tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it, bristot@...hat.com,
        mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, lizefan@...wei.com, longman@...hat.com,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/8] sched/core: Streamlining calls to task_rq_unlock()

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:32:14AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:

> Thanks for reporting. The set is based on cgroup/for-next (as of last
> week), though. I can of course rebase on tip/sched/core or mainline if
> needed.

TJ; I would like to take these patches through the scheduler tree if you
don't mind. Afaict there's no real conflict vs cgroup/for-next (I
applied the patches and then did a pull of cgroup/for-next which
finished without complaints).