| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:44:32 +0100 From: Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com> To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>, "gcc@....gnu.org" <gcc@....gnu.org> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:11 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > But yes, the compiler guys would be extremely happy to simply drop > memory_order_consume from the standard, as it is the memory order > that they most love to hate. > > Getting them to agree to any sort of peep-hole optimization semantics > for memory_order_consume is likely problematic. I wouldn't be so pessimistic about that. If the transformations can be shown to be always correct in terms of the semantics specified in the standard, and if the performance win is sufficiently large, why not? Of course, somebody has to volunteer to actually implement it :) -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists