linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/20] arch,mn10300: Fold atomic

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]

Date:	Tue, 20 May 2014 15:16:48 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, will.deacon@....com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Koichi Yasutake <yasutake.koichi@...panasonic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/20] arch,mn10300: Fold atomic_ops

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 02:05:32PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > +#define ATOMIC_OPS(op) ATOMIC_OP(op) ATOMIC_OP_RETURN(op)
> 
> Can ATOMIC_OP() just be an alias for ATOMIC_OP_RETURN() where that is
> appropriate?  I suspect several arches (MN10300 included) are going to return
> the value *anyway*.

I was going to introduce a few new atomic ops that will not have
_return() equivalents. So relying on whatever code is generated by
ATOMIC_OP_RETURN() is going to be painful.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped