linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2]: atomic_t: Remove volatile from atomic

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: <20100520.225454.37197037.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 20 May 2010 22:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	npiggin@...e.de
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	anton@...ba.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...ux.intel.com,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]: atomic_t: Remove volatile from atomic_t definition

From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 15:27:46 +1000

> Hmm, I'm missing something. David, back up a second, as far as I can see,
> with Anton's patches, atomic_read() *is* effectively just ACCESS_ONCE()
> now. Linus pointed out that header tangle is the reason not to just use
> the macro.

My bad, I was under the impression that the proposal was to remove
volatile usage and also not even do ACCESS_ONCE() in atomic_read().

And then explicitly annotate call sits that actually need the
ACCESS_ONCE() semantic.
--
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/