linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH (take 2)] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes

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: <16186.1179836163@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2007 13:16:03 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Robert P\. J\. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH (take 2)] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes

Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> wrote:

> @@ -546,10 +546,10 @@
>  When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions, certain types of memory barrier should
>  always be paired.  A lack of appropriate pairing is almost certainly an error.
>  
> -A write barrier should always be paired with a data dependency barrier or read
> -barrier, though a general barrier would also be viable.  Similarly a read
> -barrier or a data dependency barrier should always be paired with at least an
> -write barrier, though, again, a general barrier is viable:
> +A write barrier should always be paired with a data dependency barrier or a
> +read barrier, though a general barrier would also be viable.  Similarly the
> +read barrier or the data dependency barrier should always be paired with at
> +least the write barrier, though, again, the general barrier is viable:

"A" not "the" please.

> @@ -1530,7 +1530,8 @@
>  If they're used for reference counting on an object to control its lifetime,
>  they probably don't need memory barriers because either the reference count
>  will be adjusted inside a locked section, or the caller will already hold
> -sufficient references to make the lock, and thus a memory barrier unnecessary.
> +sufficient references to make the lock, and thus the memory barrier
> +unnecessary.

Hmmm...  I'm wondering if that should actually by "a lock".

David
-
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/