linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil

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:	Wed, 9 May 2007 14:31:51 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeremy@...p.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil

> > When you are implementing the locking primitives on a new platform. When
> > you are implementing the I/O and atomic prmitives on a new platform. Also
> > in inline gcc assembler where "volatile" is used for subtly different
> > purposes.
> 
> Is there a good reason for using volatile in atomic/locking primitives?
> AFAIKS there is not.

Depends on the platform. If you are writing a new architecture then who
knows what you will need to get the barriers right - you may want to use
volatile, you may want to use asm.
-
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/