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: <20060911.173208.74750403.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	segher@...nel.crashing.org
Cc:	jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, jeff@...zik.org, paulus@...ba.org,
	torvalds@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM

From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:17:18 +0200

> >> Why not just keep writel() etc. for *both* purposes; the address  
> >> cookie
> >> it gets as input can distinguish between the required behaviours for
> >> different kinds of I/Os; it will have to be setup by the arch- 
> >> specific
> >> __ioremap() or similar.
> >
> > This doesn't work when the I/O semantics are encoded into the
> > instruction, not some virual mapping PTE bits.  We'll have to use
> > a conditional or whatever in that case, which is silly.
> 
> Why is this "silly"?

It's silly because if you just use different interface
names for the different semantics, the caller can
ask for what he wants at the call site and no conditionals
are needed in the implementation.

-
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/