linux-kernel - Re: blkdev_issue_discard() hangs forever if the underlying storage device is removed

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAF1ivSYu=0Xh3aXJGbuBUZjT_azLTO6Tq1gzhNRBWsHXCUMjiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Aug 2011 23:11:03 +0800
From:	Lin Ming <lxy@...pku.edu.cn>
To:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc:	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: blkdev_issue_discard() hangs forever if the underlying storage
 device is removed

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Lin Ming wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Regarding the atomic operations I do not think that implicit memory
>> > barriers are needed here as atomic_dec_and_test() implies memory
>>
>> Which implicit memory barrier you are talking about?
>
> smp_mb() at both side of the operation as documented here in
> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt

Thanks for the info.

But I don't follow you ... why that implicit memory barriers are NOT needed?
--
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/