| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <11979320302030-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:52:36 -0200
From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, glommer@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...e.hu, ehabkost@...hat.com, jeremy@...p.org,
avi@...ranet.com, anthony@...emonkey.ws,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
ak@...e.de, chrisw@...s-sol.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
hpa@...or.com, zach@...are.com, roland@...hat.com,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH 13/21] [PATCH] change bitwise operations to get a void parameter.
This patch changes the bitwise operations in bitops.h to get
a void pointers as a parameter. Before this patch, a lot of warnings
can be seen. They're gone after it.
Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
---
include/asm-x86/bitops.h | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6-x86/include/asm-x86/bitops.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-x86.orig/include/asm-x86/bitops.h
+++ linux-2.6-x86/include/asm-x86/bitops.h
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
* Note that @nr may be almost arbitrarily large; this function is not
* restricted to acting on a single-word quantity.
*/
-static inline void set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline void set_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
{
asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "bts %1,%0"
: ADDR
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ static inline void set_bit(int nr, volat
* If it's called on the same region of memory simultaneously, the effect
* may be that only one operation succeeds.
*/
-static inline void __set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline void __set_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
{
asm volatile("bts %1,%0"
: ADDR
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static inline void __set_bit(int nr, vol
* you should call smp_mb__before_clear_bit() and/or smp_mb__after_clear_bit()
* in order to ensure changes are visible on other processors.
*/
-static inline void clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline void clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
{
asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "btr %1,%0"
: ADDR
@@ -92,13 +92,13 @@ static inline void clear_bit(int nr, vol
* clear_bit() is atomic and implies release semantics before the memory
* operation. It can be used for an unlock.
*/
-static inline void clear_bit_unlock(unsigned nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline void clear_bit_unlock(unsigned nr, volatile void *addr)
{
barrier();
clear_bit(nr, addr);
}
-static inline void __clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline void __clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
{
asm volatile("btr %1,%0" : ADDR : "Ir" (nr));
}
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ static inline void __clear_bit(int nr, v
* No memory barrier is required here, because x86 cannot reorder stores past
* older loads. Same principle as spin_unlock.
*/
-static inline void __clear_bit_unlock(unsigned nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline void __clear_bit_unlock(unsigned nr, volatile void *addr)
{
barrier();
__clear_bit(nr, addr);
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ static inline void __clear_bit_unlock(un
* If it's called on the same region of memory simultaneously, the effect
* may be that only one operation succeeds.
*/
-static inline void __change_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline void __change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
{
asm volatile("btc %1,%0" : ADDR : "Ir" (nr));
}
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ static inline void __change_bit(int nr,
* Note that @nr may be almost arbitrarily large; this function is not
* restricted to acting on a single-word quantity.
*/
-static inline void change_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline void change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
{
asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "btc %1,%0"
: ADDR : "Ir" (nr));
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static inline void change_bit(int nr, vo
* This operation is atomic and cannot be reordered.
* It also implies a memory barrier.
*/
-static inline int test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline int test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
{
int oldbit;
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static inline int test_and_set_bit(int n
*
* This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86.
*/
-static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile void *addr)
{
return test_and_set_bit(nr, addr);
}
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(
* If two examples of this operation race, one can appear to succeed
* but actually fail. You must protect multiple accesses with a lock.
*/
-static inline int __test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline int __test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
{
int oldbit;
@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ static inline int __test_and_set_bit(int
* This operation is atomic and cannot be reordered.
* It also implies a memory barrier.
*/
-static inline int test_and_clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline int test_and_clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
{
int oldbit;
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ static inline int test_and_clear_bit(int
* If two examples of this operation race, one can appear to succeed
* but actually fail. You must protect multiple accesses with a lock.
*/
-static inline int __test_and_clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline int __test_and_clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
{
int oldbit;
@@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static inline int __test_and_clear_bit(i
}
/* WARNING: non atomic and it can be reordered! */
-static inline int __test_and_change_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline int __test_and_change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
{
int oldbit;
@@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ static inline int __test_and_change_bit(
* This operation is atomic and cannot be reordered.
* It also implies a memory barrier.
*/
-static inline int test_and_change_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline int test_and_change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
{
int oldbit;
@@ -278,19 +278,20 @@ static inline int test_and_change_bit(in
return oldbit;
}
-static inline int constant_test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline int constant_test_bit(int nr, const volatile void *addr)
{
- return ((1UL << (nr % BITS_PER_LONG)) & (addr[nr / BITS_PER_LONG])) != 0;
+ return ((1UL << (nr % BITS_PER_LONG)) &
+ (((unsigned long *)addr)[nr / BITS_PER_LONG])) != 0;
}
-static inline int variable_test_bit(int nr, volatile const unsigned long *addr)
+static inline int variable_test_bit(int nr, volatile const void *addr)
{
int oldbit;
asm volatile("bt %2,%1\n\t"
"sbb %0,%0"
: "=r" (oldbit)
- : "m" (*addr), "Ir" (nr));
+ : "m" (*(unsigned long *)addr), "Ir" (nr));
return oldbit;
}
--
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