linux-kernel - Re: Why does test_bit() take a volatile addr?

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]

Date:	Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:53:44 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	"LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why does test_bit() take a volatile addr?

Hi Rusty,

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:38:35 +0930 Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
> Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
> 
> ie:
>         int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)

Because we sometimes pass volatile pointers to it and gcc will complain
if you pass a volatile to a non volatile  (I think).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped