linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] zram: Replace bit spinlocks with spinlock_t for PREEMPT

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b990dfaa093d8a3b219a789c7ebf972bf001772b.camel@gmx.de>
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2023 05:32:49 +0100
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: Replace bit spinlocks with spinlock_t for
 PREEMPT_RT.

On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 13:07 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (23/03/23 17:18), Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > Mike most likely stumbled upon it while running LTP.
>
> Yeah, I'm curious if anyone uses zram in preempt-rt systems. I don't
> mind this patch but would be nice to add new code when it solves some
> real problems. Maybe `depend on !PREEMPT_RT` can be a better option.

Patchlet's job here is only obese config RT vs !RT testing.  It can
always move back into local_patches, it won't be lonely ;-)

	-Mike