| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:22:33 -0600 From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, mingo@...e.hu, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/02] remove set_wmb - doc update On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 04:05:01PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > There are some more advanced barrier functions: > > (*) set_mb(var, value) > - (*) set_wmb(var, value) > > - These assign the value to the variable and then insert at least a write > - barrier after it, depending on the function. They aren't guaranteed to > + This assigns the value to the variable and then inserts at least a write > + barrier after it, depending on the function. It isn't guaranteed to > insert anything more than a compiler barrier in a UP compilation. "There is one more advanced barrier function"? ;-) Or did you want to remove set_mb()? Plus, the "depending on the function" bit means "respectively". So what you really want as help is something like: This assigns the value to the variable and then inserts a barrier after the assignment. It isn't guaranteed to insert anything more than a compiler barrier in a UP compilation. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists