linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/29] tsx: Add generic noop macros for RTM intrinsics

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]

Message-ID: <20130325081928.GT19692@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:19:28 -0700
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/29] tsx: Add generic noop macros for RTM intrinsics

> RTM == restricted transactional memory.  I don't understand why it's
> "restricted" and why any other architecture else would call it that and

It's restricted as in there is no guarantee that a transaction ever succeeds
and always needs a fallback path. My understanding is that this is true for 
PPC too, but not necessarily zSeries.

> hence why Linux should call it that?
> 
> Can we just call it TM for transactional memory?  Each arch can then
> have their own implementation and call it what they want.

I don't think the name will stop them to do anything.

If people feel strongly about it can change it, but it's not
actually making a real difference.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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/