linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: use rq_lock/unlock in online_fair_sched

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190806125807.GA19399@pauld.bos.csb>
Date:   Tue, 6 Aug 2019 08:58:07 -0400
From:   Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: use rq_lock/unlock in online_fair_sched_group

On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 02:04:16PM +0800 Hillf Danton wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 22:07:05 +0800 Phil Auld wrote:
> >
> > If we're to clear that flag right there, outside of the lock pinning code,
> > then I think we might as well just remove the flag and all associated
> > comments etc, no?
> 
> A diff may tell the Peter folks more about your thoughts?
> 

I provided a diff with my thoughts of how to remove this warning in
the original post :)

This comment was about your patch which, to my mind, makes the flag 
meaningless and so could just remove the whole thing. I was not 
proposing to actually do that. I assumed it was there because it was
thought to be useful. Although, if that is what people want I could 
certainly spin up a patch to that effect. 


Cheers,
Phil

> Hillf
> 

--