linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] wq: Avoid using isolated cpus' timers on unbounded queue_delayed

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]

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:54:04 -0300
From: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] wq: Avoid using isolated cpus' timers on unbounded queue_delayed_work

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:51:09AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 04:26:57PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > > Isn't that still the same number of add_timer[_on]() calls?
> > 
> > Yeah, sorry about this, what I meant was: If we are ok on calling 
> > add_timer_on() multiple times, I would rather go with the above version, as 
> > I think it's better for readability.
> 
> I don't know. It looks more verbose and less clear to me in that it isn't
> immediately clear that every branch ends with timer being added. But this is
> really minor, so unless you have a really strong opinion against the
> suggested structured, can we just do that?

Sure, we can go with the one you suggested.

Thanks!
Leo

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> tejun
>