linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: Provide generic atomic64

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0906181749h43f70338te96ea41f90caa3b7@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:49:02 -0400
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:	benh@...nel.crashing.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: Provide generic atomic64_t implementation

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 20:47, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Mike Frysinger writes:
>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 03:10, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>> > +typedef struct {
>> > +       long long counter;
>> > +} atomic64_t;
>>
>> lack of volatile seems odd compared to:
>> include/linux/types.h:
>> typedef struct {
>>     volatile int counter;
>> } atomic_t;
>
> It's only accessed under a spinlock, so I don't think it needs to be
> volatile.  On UP it's accessed within local_irq_save/restore which
> should also be compiler barriers and prevent memory access reordering,
> so again volatile isn't needed.

i'm not suggesting it is needed, i'm saying it's a bit confusing.  a
simple comment above the atomic64_t type with your simple explanation
here would go a long way.
-mike
--
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/