linux-kernel - Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM

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

Date:	Sat, 09 Sep 2006 03:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	jeff@...zik.org
Cc:	paulus@...ba.org, torvalds@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, akpm@...l.org, segher@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM

From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 05:55:19 -0400

> As (I think) BenH mentioned in another email, the normal way Linux 
> handles these interfaces is for the primary API (readX, writeX) to be 
> strongly ordered, strongly coherent, etc.  And then there is a relaxed 
> version without barriers and syncs, for the smart guys who know what 
> they're doing

Indeed, I think that is the way to handle this.
-
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/