linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] atomics: add acquire/release/relaxed variants of some atomic operations

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150717173050.GH8055@arm.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jul 2015 18:30:50 +0100
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc:	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] atomics: add acquire/release/relaxed variants of
 some atomic operations

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 06:19:54PM +0100, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/17/2015 05:40 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:07:28AM +0100, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> I have a minor nit. The atomic_add_return block is repeated with
> >> "s/atomic_add_return/.../". Perhaps some more comments to delineate the
> >> blocks more visibly will make this patch easier to read.
> > Yeah, I agree that it's pretty hard going, but I don't have any great
> > suggestions to solve that. I could add an extra blank line + comment
> > before the start of each section, if you like? Example snippet below.
> >
> > Will
> >
> > --->8
> >
> > [...]
> > #endif /* atomic_sub_return_relaxed */
> >
> >
> > /* atomic_xchg_relaxed */
> > #ifndef atomic_xchg_relaxed
> > #define  atomic_xchg_relaxed		atomic_xchg
> > #define  atomic_xchg_acquire		atomic_xchg
> > #define  atomic_xchg_release		atomic_xchg
> >
> > #else /* atomic_xchg_relaxed */
> >
> > #ifndef atomic_xchg_acquire
> > #define  atomic_xchg_acquire(...)					\
> > 	__atomic_op_acquire(int, atomic_xchg, __VA_ARGS__)
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifndef atomic_xchg_release
> > #define  atomic_xchg_release(...)					\
> > 	__atomic_op_release(int, atomic_xchg, __VA_ARGS__)
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifndef atomic_xchg
> > #define  atomic_xchg(...)						\
> > 	__atomic_op_fence(int, atomic_xchg, __VA_ARGS__)
> > #endif
> > #endif /* atomic_xchg_relaxed */
> >
> >
> > /* atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed */
> > [...]
> Something like
> 
> /* BEGIN atomc_xchg_relax */
> ...
> /* END atomic_xchg_relax */
> 
> may help.
> 
> Alternatively, I sometimes add a line separator like
> 
> /*===================[ atomic_xchg_relax ]====================*/

Hmm, I think we're straying into cosmetic preferences here and I can
imagine some people taking objection to the above, especially as they
don't appear to be in common use in mainline.

Will
--
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/