From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751972AbdBMSAZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:00:25 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:38526 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751472AbdBMSAY (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:00:24 -0500
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 19:00:20 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org" 
        <linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/core] refcount_t: Introduce a special purpose
 refcount type
Message-ID: <20170213180020.GK6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <tip-f405df5de3170c00e5c54f8b7cf4766044a032ba@git.kernel.org>
 <20170213143416.GR6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAGXu5jJFa9cW-YQtDqyckfiDxJrfd1FOa3eoQAwOrvmtnOeqLA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJFa9cW-YQtDqyckfiDxJrfd1FOa3eoQAwOrvmtnOeqLA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 09:48:42AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> > Linus asked to please make this real C code.
> 
> No objection from me, but I'm curious to see the conversation. Where
> did this discussion happen? (I'm curious to see the reasoning behind
> the decisions about the various trade-offs.)

I think Linus' email ended up being private; not much discussion other
than him saying he would like to see this.

Given the current state of code generation I wasn't in a state to argue
much. We can always revisit later.

> > And since size then isn't an issue what so ever anymore, remove the
> > debug knob and make all WARN()s unconditional.
> 
> Are you still going to land the x86 WARN_ON improvements?

Yes, once I manage to eke some response out of the relevant arch
maintainers on the subject ;-)