[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 07:18:22 -0400
From: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Miroslav Franc <mfranc@...hat.com>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bit fields && data tearing
On 09/08/2014 03:17 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>> I think the whole "removing Alpha EV5" support is basically bonkers. Just
>>> use set_bit in the tty layer. Alpha will continue to work as well as it
>>> always has done and you won't design out support for any future processor
>>> that turns out not to do byte aligned stores.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>
>> Is *that* what we are talking about? I was added to this conversation
>> in the middle where it had already generalized, so I had no idea.
>>
>> -hpa
>
> Yes there are some flags in the tty layer that are vulnerable to this
> (although they've been vulnerable to it and missing a lock since last
> century with no known ill effects).
That observation cuts both ways; I'm willing to leave it vulnerable with
'no known ill effects' on the Alpha.
--
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