linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] llist: Add a lock-less list variant terminated by a sentinel node

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: <YzsdsjlMMDFwLOzR@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Mon, 3 Oct 2022 07:36:50 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] llist: Add a lock-less list variant terminated by
 a sentinel node

Hello,

On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 01:32:49PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> What my current thinking is to make llist works with both NULL and sentinel
> terminated lockless list. Users who wish to use the sentinel terminated
> version will have to use special sentinel version of LLIST_HEAD() macro and
> llist_del_all() and __llist_del_all() functions. In this way, I don't need
> to touch an existing users of llist while minimizing code redundancy. What
> do you think?

Wouldn't that be more error-prone in the long term? I'd just bite the bullet
and convert the empty tests. It is a hassle to find them but given that it's
just the head node testing, it hopefully wouldn't be too bad.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun