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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:35:29 +0000 From: Hayes Wang <hayeswang@...ltek.com> To: Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com> CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, nic_swsd <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] r8152: clear theflagofSCHEDULE_TASKLETin tasklet Francois Romieu [mailto:romieu@...zoreil.com] [...] > test_and_clear_bit (dense) or clear_bit would be more idiomatic. Excuse me. If I use clear_bit without test_bit or test_and_clear_bit, they alwayes call the spin lock. However, for my original flow, the spin lock is only called when the clear_bit is necessary. Is that better? Best Regards, Hayes -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists