linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] doc:lock: remove reference to clever use of read-write lock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <261280816.8eN5xxrYeQ@harkonnen>
Date:   Thu, 05 Sep 2019 10:21:16 +0200
From:   Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc:lock: remove reference to clever use of read-write lock

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 4:43:44 PM CEST Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 15:41:16 +0200
> 
> Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it> wrote:
> >  several CPU's and you want to use spinlocks you can potentially use
> > 
> > -cheaper versions of the spinlocks. IFF you know that the spinlocks are
> > +cheaper versions of the spinlocks. If you know that the spinlocks are
> > 
> >  never used in interrupt handlers, you can use the non-irq versions::
> I suspect that was not actually a typo; "iff" is a way for the
> mathematically inclined to say "if and only if".

Unfortunately this thread focused on this little thing ^_^'

What about the patch itself? Should I send a new one without this fix or you 
will apply it as it is?