linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] remove volatile from x86 cmos

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1152889765.27135.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:09:25 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove volatile from x86 cmos_lock

On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 16:53 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Freitag, 14. Juli 2006 16:48 schrieb Steven Rostedt:
> > @@ -52,14 +54,16 @@ static inline void lock_cmos(unsigned ch
> >  
> >  static inline void unlock_cmos(void)
> >  {
> > -       cmos_lock = 0;
> > +       set_wmb(cmos_lock, 0);
> >  }
> >  static inline int do_i_have_lock_cmos(void)
> >  {
> > +       barrier();
> 
> Shouldn't these be rmb() ?

I was thinking that too, but I'm still not sure when to use rmb or
barrier.  wmb seems pretty straight forward though.  hmm, maybe this
really should be a smb_rmb since I believe a barrier would be ok for UP.

-- Steve


-
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/