linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] x86_64: ticket lock spinlock

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:	Thu, 9 Aug 2007 03:42:54 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86_64: ticket lock spinlock

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 12:26:55PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> >   *
> >   * (the type definitions are in asm/spinlock_types.h)
> >   */
> >  
> > +#if (NR_CPUS > 256)
> > +#error spinlock supports a maximum of 256 CPUs
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  static inline int __raw_spin_is_locked(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
> >  {
> > -	return *(volatile signed int *)(&(lock)->slock) <= 0;
> > +	int tmp = *(volatile signed int *)(&(lock)->slock);
> 
> Why is slock not volatile signed int in the first place? 

Don't know really. Why does spin_is_locked need it to be volatile?


> > -	int oldval;
> > +	short tmp;
> > +        short oldval;
> 
> Broken white space?

Hmm, I'll fix it.

Thanks,
Nick
-
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/