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]
Message-ID: <46BB74B9.4070702@nortel.com>
Date:	Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:10:33 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
CC:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, wjiang@...ilience.com,
	wensong@...ux-vs.org, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	horms@...ge.net.au, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net, zlynx@....org,
	rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/24] document volatile atomic_read() behavior

Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> Anyway, what's the supposed advantage of *(volatile *) vs. using
> a real volatile object?  That you can access that same object in
> a non-volatile way?

That's my understanding.  That way accesses where you don't care about 
volatility may be optimised.

For instance, in cases where there are already other things controlling 
visibility (as are needed for atomic increment, for example) you don't 
need to make the access itself volatile.

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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ