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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ce1999f3-4b30-4e12-bbb9-9b0c090a7092@kernel.dk> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 08:50:57 -0600 From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] zram: Replace bit spinlocks with a spinlock_t. On 9/6/24 8:48 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2024-09-06 08:31:23 [-0600], Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 9/6/24 8:14 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> this is follow up to the previous posting, making the lock >>> unconditionally. The original problem with bit spinlock is that it >>> disabled preemption and the following operations (within the atomic >>> section) perform operations that may sleep on PREEMPT_RT. Mike expressed >>> that he would like to keep using zram on PREEMPT_RT. >> >> Looks good to me: >> >> Reviewed-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> > Thank you. > This is routed via your tree, right? I can certainly take it - Minchan let me know if you have concerns. -- Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists