linux-kernel - so what's so special about sema

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:54:34 -0400 (EDT)
From:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: so what's so special about sema_init() for alpha?

  i'm still curious as to why the implementation for sema_init() for
the alpha can't be simplified as (allegedly) could all of the other
architecture sema_init() calls.

  the relevant code from that semaphore.h is:

===========
static inline void sema_init(struct semaphore *sem, int val)
{
        /*
         * Logically,
         *   *sem = (struct semaphore)__SEMAPHORE_INITIALIZER((*sem),val);
         * except that gcc produces better initializing by parts yet.
         */

        atomic_set(&sem->count, val);
        init_waitqueue_head(&sem->wait);
}
============

  ok, so what means "produces better initializing"?  would a direct
call to __SEMAPHORE_INITIALIZER() work or not?  i'm just curious.  if
it really makes a difference in this one case, i can always resubmit a
patch that simplifies all of the other cases except for this one.

rday
-
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/