linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] atomic.h : standardizing atomic primitives

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:36:03 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
	systemtap@...rces.redhat.com,
	Douglas Niehaus <niehaus@...s.ku.edu>,
	"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] atomic.h : standardizing atomic primitives

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:25 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Thanks for testing Andrew's fixes.

I haven't actually taken any from him. I just started afresh.

>  I am wondering about what happened to
> the Powerpc recursive include problems Andrew experienced. Quoting him :
> 
> "OK, I fixed eight separate compile errors in this patch series and
> now powerpc is being very ugly with a twisty maze of include
> dependencies.
> 
> I'm giving up.  Someone should publish a suite of cross-compilers for us
> so stuff like this doesn't need to happen."
> 
> I see that you have removed the include <asm/atomic.h> from bitops.h and
> system.h in powerpc. If it compiles on every architectures, then it's a
> good approach.

Yeah, I fiddled around with those powerpc headers a bit until it stopped
whining. Maybe the powerpc folks ought to eyeball it a bit, but it build
a kernel image here.

> I planned to post a new patch which uses macros for cmpxchg and xchg in
> asm-generic/atomic.h instead of inline functions. It would remove the
> dependency on system.h. However, if your modifications work well on
> every architecture, my fix might not be needed. Anyone has a preferred
> solution ? I have not been able to setup my cross-compiler test bench
> yet due to some hardware issues and waited for it before I released
> further fixes, but if you want to try my macro-based fix, I could post
> it.

Whatever people want; inlines are generally preferred due to the extra
type checking.

I just needed atomic_long_cmpxchg to work so I kicked your patches about
till they compiled.

> And about the alpha build, Does the assembler errors also happen without
> this patch ?

Yes. Something fishy going on there... gcc-4.1.1 + binutils-2.17
Compiler seems to build fine, but kernel code makes it go belly up.


-
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/