[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611111532220.3501@nanos>
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.
