[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <544DBA03.1010709@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:20:35 +0800
From: Ren Qiaowei <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/12] x86, mpx: on-demand kernel allocation of bounds
tables
On 10/24/2014 08:08 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014, Qiaowei Ren wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * Go poke the address of the new bounds table in to the
>> + * bounds directory entry out in userspace memory. Note:
>> + * we may race with another CPU instantiating the same table.
>> + * In that case the cmpxchg will see an unexpected
>> + * 'actual_old_val'.
>> + */
>> + ret = user_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(&actual_old_val, bd_entry,
>> + expected_old_val, bt_addr);
>
> This is fully preemptible non-atomic context, right?
>
> So this wants a proper comment, why using
> user_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic() is the right thing to do here.
>
Well, we will address it.
Thanks,
Qiaowei
--
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