linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] AFS: Fix file locking

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:	Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] AFS: Fix file locking



On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> So you did. Then to answer that, yes it could be faster because there are
> stupid volatiles sprinkled all over the bitops code so you could easily
> end up having to do more loads. Does it make a real difference? Unlikely,
> but David loves counting cycles :)

I thought we long long since removed the volatiles. They are buggy and 
horrible, and we really want to let the compiler combine multiple 
test-bits, and if they matter that implies locking is buggy or something 
worse..

Ie we'd *want*

	if (test_bit(x, y) || test_bit(z,y))

to be rewritten by the compiler as testing bits x/z at the same time.

But now I'm too scared to look.

		Linus
-
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/