linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/arch: Move qrwlock.h include after qspinlock.h

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: <382d4c4b-6dc8-75bc-f223-01aef8a2ef90@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Feb 2021 13:50:45 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/arch: Move qrwlock.h include after qspinlock.h

On 2/10/21 1:28 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 10/02/21 15:45, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The queued rwlock code has a dependency on the current spinlock
>> implementation (likely to be qspinlock), but not vice versa. Including
>> qrwlock.h before qspinlock.h can be problematic when expanding qrwlock
>> functionality.
>>
>> If both qspinlock.h and qrwlock.h are to be included, the qrwlock.h
>> include should always be after qspinlock.h. Update the current set of
>> asm/spinlock.h files to enforce that.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>
> arch/sparc/include/asm/spinlock_64.h is missing.  Also, the include in 
> kernel/locking/qrwlock.c is not necessary (it may be there for 
> aesthetic reasons, but it complicates thing in this case).

Sorry for missing arch/sparc/include/asm/spinlock_64.h. I was just 
focusing on asm/spinlock.h and not aware that there are other variants 
there.

It is true that the asm/qrwlock.h include in qrwlock.c is not really 
necessary. I can't recall why it was there.

>
> I'll send a v2 that is based on the kvm/next tree.
>
> Paolo
>
Thanks for taking care of that.

Cheers,
Longman