Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:52:21 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Liljestrand Hans <ishkamiel@...il.com> Cc: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>, "aik@...abs.ru" <aik@...abs.ru>, "david@...son.dropbear.id.au" <david@...son.dropbear.id.au> Subject: Re: Conversion from atomic_t to refcount_t: summary of issues On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 05:20:08PM +0200, Liljestrand Hans wrote: > > > > Didn't look at the rest, but going by the above blindly converting to > > refcount_t without prior cleanups isn't a good idea. > > Yes, I agree. Do you propose we just leave the weirder cases as > atmoic_t, or should we try to incorporate needed cleanup in this initial > patchset? > Yes, I would leave them be for now. I imagine all the 'easy' ones is still a giant pile of patches.
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.