linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] atomic_ops.rst: Fix wrong example code

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

Message-Id: <20180419135544.GA26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Apr 2018 06:55:44 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>
Cc:     corbet@....net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] atomic_ops.rst: Fix wrong example code

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 05:42:44PM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote:
> Example code snippets for necessary of READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() has
> an unnecessary line of code and wrong condition.  This commit fixes
> them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>

Good catch!!!  I queued and pushed both patches for further review,
thank you!

						Thanx, Paul

> ---
>  Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst b/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
> index fce929144ccd..4ea4af71e68a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
> @@ -111,7 +111,6 @@ If the compiler can prove that do_something() does not store to the
>  variable a, then the compiler is within its rights transforming this to
>  the following::
> 
> -	tmp = a;
>  	if (a > 0)
>  		for (;;)
>  			do_something();
> @@ -119,7 +118,7 @@ the following::
>  If you don't want the compiler to do this (and you probably don't), then
>  you should use something like the following::
> 
> -	while (READ_ONCE(a) < 0)
> +	while (READ_ONCE(a) > 0)
>  		do_something();
> 
>  Alternatively, you could place a barrier() call in the loop.
> -- 
> 2.13.0
>