linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86/spinlocks optional for 3.1

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: <4E382D88.4020302@goop.org>
Date:	Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:02:00 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/spinlocks optional for 3.1

On 08/01/2011 06:02 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/01/2011 05:04 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> If that xadd implementation could perhaps be shared, I wouldn't hate
>> it so much. As it is, I really don't see the point in pulling this.
>>
> OK, no problem.  We'll rework it for 3.2.
>

Agreed.  The xadd helper is actually identical between the two, aside
from the 64-bit form.  I was following the form of cmpchg_32/64.h, but
to be honest I don't understand why they're separate.  Is it some
remaining TBD unification?

    J
--
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/