[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 08:58:04 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
"dwindsor@...il.com" <dwindsor@...il.com>,
"ishkamiel@...il.com" <ishkamiel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/19] Since we need to change
the implementation, stop exposing internals. Provide kref_read() to read the
current reference count; typically used for debug messages.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 04:49:26PM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 08:55:53AM +0200, Elena Reshetova wrote:
> > > Kills two anti-patterns:
> > >
> > > atomic_read(&kref->refcount)
> > > kref->refcount.counter
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> >
> > If you are going to send patches out, do it right, with a correct
> > subject, your signed-off-by: added, and the rest. Otherwise it just
> > makes some of us cringe when we have to read these...
>
> I didn't want to touch Peter's patches, since I assume he would send them separately by himself
> and then we don't have to carry them around. However until that happens,
> for testing compilation on different archs, they need to be included in the series.
Why not fix them up properly, they should be part of this series, as you
are relying on them. To not do so seems very strange to me...
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.
