linux-kernel - Re: [cpuops cmpxchg double V1 1/4] Generic support for this_cpu_cmpxchg

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:	Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:51:35 +0100
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [cpuops cmpxchg double V1 1/4] Generic support for this_cpu_cmpxchg_double

On 12/18/2010 03:47 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> This is ugly. :-( I think we should have made this_cpu_*() ops take
> pointers from the beginning.  Anyways, that's too late, so is it
> completely impossible to make cmpxchg_double's take a scalar value?
> It can take the pointer all the same, no?

Also, the ratonale behind taking a scalar value instead of pointer was
that the operation changes what they do depending on the type of the
parameter (the size of the parameter), which is true for the double
ops too, so I think it would be better if we stick with lvalues.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/