linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] zram: Replace bit spinlocks with a spinlock

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: <20240708030330.GA797471@google.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:03:30 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] zram: Replace bit spinlocks with a spinlock_t.

On (24/07/05 14:02), Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > On 2024-07-04 13:38:04 [+0200], Alexander Lobakin wrote:
[..]
> >>> +static void zram_meta_init_table_locks(struct zram *zram, size_t num_pages)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	size_t index;
> >>> +
> >>> +	for (index = 0; index < num_pages; index++)
> >>
> >> Maybe declare @index right here?
> > 
> > But why? Declarations at the top followed by code. 
> 
> I meant
> 
> 	for (size_t index = 0; index < num_pages; index++)
> 
> It's allowed and even recommended for a couple years already.

I wonder since when?  Do gcc 5.1 and clang 13.0.1 support this?