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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 22 Jul 2021 10:32:23 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
To:     Xiyu Yang <>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <>,,, Xin Tan <>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] kernfs: Convert from atomic_t to refcount_t on

Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 02:49:37PM +0800, Xiyu Yang wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> I consider it as a reference count due to its related operations and
> the developer's comments, such as "put a reference count on a
> kernfs_node" around the kernfs_put(). If anything wrong, please let me
> know.

Did you test this?  Is this really a reference count when looking at the
code?  Or is it just a counter that we use for dealing with vfs issues?

Usually filesystems and the vfs can not use the refcount_t type for
various reasons, please do some research on that before making these

And of course, please explain how you tested this patch if you resubmit
it with the needed information.


greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists