linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures

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: <20070809171832.1568864b.wjiang@resilience.com>
Date:	Thu, 9 Aug 2007 17:18:32 +0800
From:	Jerry Jiang <wjiang@...ilience.com>
To:	7eggert@....de
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	ak@...e.de, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org, horms@...ge.net.au,
	cfriesen@...tel.com, zlynx@....org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:10:16 +0200
Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de> wrote:

> > 
> > Why the *volatile-accesses-in-code* is acceptable, does C standard make it
> > clear?
> 
> http://lwn.net/Articles/233482/

I have read this article before, but What Linus said only focusing on
the conclusion-- The semantics of it are so unclear as
to be totally useless.

and still not to said "Why the *volatile-accesses-in-code* is
acceptable"

-- Jerry


> -- 
> Fun things to slip into your budget
> Heisenberg Compensator upgrade kit
> 
> Friß, Spammer: uWfuXeviZ@...eggert.dyndns.org
-
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/