linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/5] atomics: introduce arch_atomic_op

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:	Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:36:14 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/5] atomics: introduce
 arch_atomic_op_{acquire,release,fence} helpers

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:48:16AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Some architectures may have their special barriers for acquire, release
> and fence semantics, general memory barriers(smp_mb__*_atomic()) in
> __atomic_op_*() may be too strong, so arch_atomic_op_*() helpers are
> introduced for architectures to provide their own version helpers to
> build different variants based on _relaxed variants.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/atomic.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/atomic.h b/include/linux/atomic.h
> index 00a5763..622255b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/atomic.h
> +++ b/include/linux/atomic.h
> @@ -34,20 +34,33 @@
>   * The idea here is to build acquire/release variants by adding explicit
>   * barriers on top of the relaxed variant. In the case where the relaxed
>   * variant is already fully ordered, no additional barriers are needed.
> + *
> + * Besides, if an arch has a special barrier for acquire/release, it could
> + * implement its own arch_atomic_op_* and use the same framework for building
> + * variants
>   */
> +#ifndef arch_atomic_op_acquire
>  #define __atomic_op_acquire(op, args...)				\
>  ({									\
>  	typeof(op##_relaxed(args)) __ret  = op##_relaxed(args);		\
>  	smp_mb__after_atomic();						\
>  	__ret;								\
>  })
> +#else
> +#define __atomic_op_acquire arch_atomic_op_acquire
> +#endif

Not really a fan of this, its not consistent with the existing #ifndef
guard style.
--
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/