linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: atomic_ops: atomic_set is a write (not read) operation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 2 Jul 2018 11:55:26 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer@....net>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: atomic_ops: atomic_set is a write (not read)
 operation

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 03:43:45PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 01:07:56AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 09:43:23PM +0200, Jonathan Neuschäfer wrote:
> > > Describe it as such.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer@....net>
> > 
> > I have queued this, but if someone else would prefer to take it:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> In the commit message of bb7d47b697116c ("docs: atomic_ops: Describe
> atomic_set as a write operation") from your dev branch,
> 
> from "reads" to "writes"

Good catch, fixed, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul

>   Andrea
> 
> 
> > 
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst b/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
> > > index 2e7165f86f55..724583453e1f 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
> > > @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ updated by one CPU, local_t is probably more appropriate. Please see
> > >  local_t.
> > > 
> > >  The first operations to implement for atomic_t's are the initializers and
> > > -plain reads. ::
> > > +plain writes. ::
> > > 
> > >  	#define ATOMIC_INIT(i)		{ (i) }
> > >  	#define atomic_set(v, i)	((v)->counter = (i))
> > > -- 
> > > 2.17.1
> > > 
> > 
>