linux-kernel - [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/16] memory-barriers.txt: Fix typo in pairing example

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]

Message-Id: <1507152086-9791-15-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed,  4 Oct 2017 14:21:25 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, Scott Tsai <scottt@...ttt.tw>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/16] memory-barriers.txt: Fix typo in pairing example

From: Scott Tsai <scottt@...ttt.tw>

In the "general barrier pairing with implicit control depdendency"
example, the last write by CPU 1 was meant to change variable x and not
y. The example would be pretty uninteresting if no CPU ever changes x
and the variable was initialized to zero.

Signed-off-by: Scott Tsai <scottt@...ttt.tw>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 7deee1441640..f37375544d71 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -947,7 +947,7 @@ Or even:
 	===============	      ===============================
 	r1 = READ_ONCE(y);
 	<general barrier>
-	WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);     if (r2 = READ_ONCE(x)) {
+	WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);     if (r2 = READ_ONCE(x)) {
 			         <implicit control dependency>
 			         WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
 			      }
-- 
2.5.2