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]

Message-Id: <1157916919.23085.24.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 10 Sep 2006 20:35:19 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, 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

Ar Sul, 2006-09-10 am 10:18 -0700, ysgrifennodd Jesse Barnes:
> 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?

We have existing users of the format "__foo" for unlocked or un-ordered
foo. __readl seems fairly natural and its shorter to write than
_nobarriermaybesyncsafterlockbutnotwithmmio()

Alan

-
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/