linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 5/7] locking/percpu-rwsem: Remove the embedded rwsem

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: <20200203174831.GA9834@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 3 Feb 2020 09:48:31 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
        will@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, williams@...hat.com, bristot@...hat.com,
        longman@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net, jack@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 5/7] locking/percpu-rwsem: Remove the embedded rwsem

On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 04:09:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Can you split the removal of the non-owned resem support into a separate
> > patch?  I still think keeping this one and moving aio to that scheme is
> > a better idea than the current ad-hoc locking scheme that has all kinds
> > of issues.
> 
> That's basically 2 lines of code and a comment, surely we can ressurect
> that if/when it's needed again?

Sure, I could.  But then you'd still need to update your commit log for
this patch explaining why it includes unrelated changes to a different
subsystem.  By splitting it you also document your changes much better.