linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/20] futex: splitup and waitv syscall

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

Date:   Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:13:55 -0300
From:   André Almeida <andrealmeid@...labora.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com,
        krisman@...labora.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        bigeasy@...utronix.de, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, mtk.manpages@...il.com, dave@...olabs.net,
        arnd@...db.de, tglx@...utronix.de, dvhart@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] futex: splitup and waitv syscall

Hi Peter,

Às 11:07 de 15/09/21, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> Hi,
> 
> Neither Thomas nor myself much liked that futex2.c nor do we think that CONFIG_
> symbol makes much sense.
> 
> However, futex.c is a wee bit long and splitting it up makes sense. So I've
> taken the liberty to replace your initial patch with 15 of my own and then
> rebased the remaining patches on top of that.
> 

Thank you for doing that. futex.c is indeed too big and I believe that
this really make the code easier to read, and the way you organized
makes more sense than the way I did. Maybe even robust could have a
separated file?

Thanks,
	André