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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:02:51 +0900 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, cl@...ux.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4]percpu_counter: fix code for 32bit systems On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 04:04:04PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > static inline s64 percpu_counter_read(struct percpu_counter *fbc) > { > +#if BITS_PER_LONG == 32 > + s64 count; > + spin_lock(&fbc->lock); > + count = fbc->count; > + spin_unlock(&fbc->lock); > + return count; > +#else > return fbc->count; > +#endif I don't know. Is there any problem caused by this? The interface is known to be unreliable and already being used in speculative manner. I think it's more beneficial to avoid using locks on fast read path. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists