netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time

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: <20130506193307.GD800@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Mon, 6 May 2013 12:33:07 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	linux-nfs <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ben Chan <benchan@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time

Hello,

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 12:30:19PM -0700, Colin Cross wrote:
> > I don't care about %current change, especially given that it's a debug
> > interface but that really should be a separate patch, so please split
> > it out if you want it (and I think we want it).
> 
> The current change was requested by akpm and was part of the original
> patch.  Is it really worth confusing the history of this patch even
> more, applying it the first time, reverting it, and then applying it
> again in two parts?

I don't know.  The patch seems confusing to me.  It really is about
adding single lockdep annotation but comes with other changes.  I
don't think it's a big deal either way but at least we wouldn't be
having this %current vs. @tsk conversation which is mostly irrelevant
to the actual proposed change, right?  It really should have been a
separate patch from the beginning.  Just refer to the original commit
and explain what happened?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html