Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:52:21 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <>
To: Liljestrand Hans <>
Cc: "Reshetova, Elena" <>,
	"" <>,
	Greg KH <>,
	Kees Cook <>,
	"" <>,
	Boqun Feng <>,
	David Windsor <>, "" <>,
	"" <>
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.