linux-kernel - Re: Usage semantics of atomic

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

Date:	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:37:46 -0500
From:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To:	Vineet Gupta <vineetg76@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Usage semantics of atomic_set ( )

Vineet Gupta wrote:
> I'm trying to implement atomic ops for a CPU which has no inherent
> support for Read-Modify-Write Ops. Instead of using a global spin lock
> which protects all the atomic APIs, I want to use a spin lock per
> instance of atomic_t.

What operations are you using to implement spinlocks?

A few architectures use arrays of spinlocks to implement atomic_t.  I believe 
sparc and parisc are among them.  Assuming your spinlock implementation is sound 
and efficient, the same technique should work for you.

	-- Chris
--
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/