| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:18:06 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: jeff@...zik.org, 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 On Saturday, September 09, 2006 3:08 am, David Miller wrote: > 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. Well why didn't you guys mention this when mmiowb() went in? I agree that having a relaxed PIO ordering version of writeX makes sense (jejb convinced me of this on irc the other day). But what to name it? We already have readX_relaxed, but that's for PIO vs. DMA ordering, not PIO vs. PIO. To distinguish from that case maybe writeX_weak or writeX_nobarrier would make sense? Jesse - 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