netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 25/26] tile: Remove spin_unlock

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: <CA+55aFyogF0gpZ+5KHabFaYDhAq0awPzpSVj9S2q9EZnoY2eXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:10:41 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 25/26] tile: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Please don't make this one commit fopr every architecture.
>
> Once something gets removed, it gets removed. There's no point in
> "remove it from architecture X". If there are no more users, we're
> done with it, and making it be 25 patches with the same commit message
> instead of just one doesn't help anybody.

Just to clarify: I think the actual *users* are worth doing one by
one, particularly if there are user-specific explanations of what that
particular code wanted, and why spin_unlock_wait() doesn't really
help.

And I think that you actually have those per-user insights by now,
after looking at the long thread.

So I'm not saying "do one patch for the whole series". One patch per
removal of use is fine - in fact preferred.

But once there are no actual more users, just remove all the
architecture definitions in one go, because explaining the same thing
several times doesn't actually help anything.

In fact, *if* we end up ever resurrecting that thing, it's good if we
can resurrect it in one go. Then we can resurrect the one or two users
that turned out to matter after all and could come up with why some
particular ordering was ok too.

                   Linus