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: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:17:59 -0500 (EST) From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Things may not be quite as bad as they appear. On many architectures the > > store-mb-load pattern will work as expected. (In fact, I don't know which > > architectures it might fail on.) > > Several weak-memory-ordering CPUs. :-/ Of the CPUs supported by Linux, do you know which ones will work with store-mb-load and which ones won't? Alan - 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