linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 2

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: <464382DE.5020206@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 May 2007 02:08:54 +0530
From:	jimmy bahuleyan <knight.camelot@...il.com>
To:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Heikki Orsila <shdl@...alwe.fi>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 2

Jonathan Corbet wrote:
[snip..]
> +
> +  - The jiffies variable is special in that it can have a different value
> +    every time it is referenced, but it can be read without any special
> +    locking.  So jiffies can be volatile, but the addition of other
> +    variables of this type is strongly frowned upon.  Jiffies is considered
> +    to be a "stupid legacy" issue in this regard.

Why is it that you consider jiffies to be a "stupid legacy"? Isn't it
natural to have a externally modified variable which is only /read/ to
be volatile? (or is jiffies supposed to be replaced with something
smarter/better :)


-jb
-- 
Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy.
-
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/