| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:16:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> To: Lin Ming <lxy@...pku.edu.cn> cc: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: blkdev_issue_discard() hangs forever if the underlying storage device is removed On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Lin Ming wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Lin Ming wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > Regarding the atomic operations I do not think that implicit memory > >> > barriers are needed here as atomic_dec_and_test() implies memory > >> > >> Which implicit memory barrier you are talking about? > > > > smp_mb() at both side of the operation as documented here in > > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > > Thanks for the info. > > But I don't follow you ... why that implicit memory barriers are NOT needed? > Oh, I am sorry I have actually wanted to say that *explicit* memory barriers are no needed in that case. Sorry for the confusion! Thanks! -Lukas -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists