linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ix86: adjust asm constraints in atomic64 wrappers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4F17007A.9090102@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:25:14 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
CC:	mingo@...e.hu, "eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, luca@...a-barbieri.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ix86: adjust asm constraints in atomic64 wrappers

On 01/18/2012 08:57 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> For functions with nonstandard calling conventions it is normal to
>> declare them as void foo(void);
>
> For the above, I'd like to keep atomic64_t in the signature. Would
> void foo(atomic64_t, ...) be acceptable?
>

Sounds reasonable to me.  It doesn't matter much.

 >
 >> It may be a good idea to prefix these symbols with __ though.
 >
 > But not in this patch. (Can't resist to add that if you think it
 > should be this way, why did you not make it a condition for accepting
 > theoriginal patch, which you committed?)
 >

I didn't say "condition", I said "it may be a good idea".  Agreed in not 
in this patch.

The other bit in all of that is that, guess what, some people with solid 
track records, like yourself, I generally trust to do things mostly 
right, and so I don't actually scrutinize quite as in depth as I would 
patches from other people.  Every now and then it means I stumble upon 
something later after I have thought about it more.  This is by and 
large fine.

	-hpa
--
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/