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]

Date:	Mon, 06 May 2013 22:06:05 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, 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>,
	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

On Monday, May 06, 2013 12:33:07 PM Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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?

Yeah.  I'd prefer that very much.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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