linux-kernel - Re: [cpuops cmpxchg double V1 1/4] Generic support for this_cpu_cmpxchg

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]

Date:	Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:52:50 +0100
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [cpuops cmpxchg double V1 1/4] Generic support for this_cpu_cmpxchg_double

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> Oh gosh. So we would be using a tight corner case for gcc that may only
> work with certain versions of gcc? Note that the current version does only
> return a boolean. There is no need for returning double words. I'd be
> happy if we could *pass* double words.

I wouldn't call it a corner case.  It's pretty clearly defined in the
ABI.  But that said, it might still be problematic on other
architectures when we try to apply it to different architectures.  Is
everyone against just taking a scalar for the first variable instead
of taking a pointer?  I'd be happier with that than the current one.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/