linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] locking changes for v6.4

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]

Date:   Thu, 4 May 2023 11:23:41 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] locking changes for v6.4

On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:30 AM Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com> wrote:
>
> Later I have also showed/suggested Rust's approach [3][4]:
> - 'replace' for __xchg,
> - 'take' for fetch_and_zero

I don't think either of those are acceptable, and both are to me
*much* worse than the existing "fetch_and_zero()" that i915 uses.

That name just makes sense and explains what it does. There is no ambiguity.

I will not be taking a pull that makes a good name worse.

Naming matters, and "use a generic function" is not an excuse for
having bad names.

              Linus