linux-kernel - Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:49:31 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
CC:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
	Jerry Jiang <wjiang@...ilience.com>,
	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Aug 7 2007 15:38, Chris Friesen wrote:

>>That volatile is there precisely to force the compiler to dereference it every
>>single time.

> Actually, the dereference will be done once (or more often if registers
> are short or the compiler does not feel like keeping it around),
> and the read from memory will be done on every iteration ;-)

My bad.  You are, of course, correct.  :)

Chris
-
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/