linux-kernel - Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:54:44 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	segher@...nel.crashing.org, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org,
	jeff@...zik.org, paulus@...ba.org, torvalds@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM

    David> It's silly because if you just use different interface
    David> names for the different semantics, the caller can ask for
    David> what he wants at the call site and no conditionals are
    David> needed in the implementation.

OTOH that leads to a combinatorial explosion of 8/16/32/64 access
sizes, write combining or not, strongly ordered wrt local memory or
not, relaxed PCI ordering or not, etc. etc.

 - R.
-
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/