[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170328101532.GA13819@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:15:32 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] asm-generic, x86: wrap atomic operations
* Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
> > So I'm not convinced that it's true in this case.
> >
> > Could we see the C version and compare? I could be wrong about it all.
>
> Here it is (without instrumentation):
> https://gist.github.com/dvyukov/e33d580f701019e0cd99429054ff1f9a
Could you please include the full patch so that it can be discussed via email and
such?
> Instrumentation will add for each function:
>
> static __always_inline void atomic64_set(atomic64_t *v, long long i)
> {
> + kasan_check_write(v, sizeof(*v));
> arch_atomic64_set(v, i);
> }
That in itself looks sensible and readable.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists