linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched.c : correct comment for this_rq

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: <4547D23A.3090007@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 01 Nov 2006 09:46:18 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
CC:	Borislav Petkov <petkov@...h.uni-muenster.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...washington.edu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched.c : correct comment for this_rq_lock() routine

Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>example, i was just poking around the source for the various
>"atomic.h" files and noticed a couple possible cleanups:
>
>  1) make sure *everyone* uses "volatile" in the typedef struct (which
>	i actually submitted recently)
>

I don't see why. There is nothing in atomic (eg. atomic_read) that says
there must be a compiler barrier around the operation.

Have you checked that the architecture implementation actually needs the
volatile where you've added it?

--

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
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/