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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:28:25 -0800 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com> Subject: Re: [Patch net-next v2] mlx5: use RCU lock in mlx5_eq_cq_get() On 02/06/2019 04:04 PM, Cong Wang wrote: > synchronize_irq() is called before mlx5_cq_put(), so I don't > see why readers could get 0 refcnt. Then the more reasons to get rid of the refcount increment/decrement completely ... Technically, even the rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() are not needed, since synchronize_irq() is enough. > > For the rds you mentioned, it doesn't wait for readers, this > is why it needs to check against 0 and why it is different from > this one. > > Thanks. >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists