linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] rwsem: introduce upgrade

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: <Zw-vrAFdO5aZKSmy@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 05:21:00 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, lizhe.67@...edance.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org,
	longman@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] rwsem: introduce upgrade_read interface

On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 12:51:23PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > It's obviously a try_upgrade_read, right?
> 
> Well, that's confusing.  "try" usually means "don't sleep", and this
> sleeps.  Maybe it shouldn't sleep; ie we make this fail if there's any
> other reader?  It'll succeed less often, but it'll be easier to
> understand.

To me try primarily implies that it can fail and the return value
needs to be checked.  But I guess it has different implications to
different people.