linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] remove volatile from nmi.c

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]

Message-Id: <20060714105841.4490c0e2.akpm@osdl.org>
Date:	Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:58:41 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc:	rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove volatile from nmi.c

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > > 	endflag = 1;
> > > 	smp_wmb();
> > 
> > This was what I originally wrote, and then I saw the set_wmb which made
> > me think that it was the proper way to do things (why else is it
> > there?). So if it shouldn't be used, then we should get rid of it or at
> > least mark it deprecated, otherwise you have people like me thinking
> > that we should use it.
> 
> Yeah, we should probably get rid of it. No need to even mark it 
> deprecated, since nobody uses it anyway. 
> 
> At a minimum, I think we should not document it in the locking 
> documentation, making people incorrectly think it might be a good idea.
> 
> Hmm? Andrew?
> 

It has no callers and can be trivially reimplemented by any out-of-tree
caller, so we should be able to remove it immediately.

-
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/