Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:39:05 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, 
    Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, 
    Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, 
    Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 
    Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>, 
    LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 00/13] HARDENED_ATOMIC

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> A wee bit like so...
> +
> +static inline bool refcount_sub_and_test(int i, refcount_t *r)

Why would we want to expose that at all? refcount_inc() and
refcount_dec_and_test() is what is required for refcounting.

I know there are a few users of kref_sub() in tree, but that's all
undocumented voodoo, which should not be proliferated.

Thanks,

	tglx

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.