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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 17:54:50 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git pile 3 - dcache On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 11:57:27AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I really dislike this pattern: > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) > preempt_disable(); > ... > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) > preempt_enable(); > > and while the new comment explains *why* it exists, it's still very ugly indeed. > > We have it in a couple of other places, and we also end up having > another variation on the theme that is about "migrate_{dis,en}able()", > except it is written as > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) > migrate_disable(); > else > preempt_disable(); > > because on non-PREEMPT_RT obviously preempt_disable() is the better > and simpler thing. > > Can we please just introduce helper functions? > > At least that > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) > preempt_disable(); > ... > > pattern could be much more naturally expressed as > > preempt_disable_under_spinlock(); > ... > The original patch years ago use to have: preempt_disable_rt() preempt_enable_rt() That did exactly that, but an effort was made to get rid of it. But your more descriptive "preempt_enable/disable_under_spinlock()" may make more sense. -- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists