linux-kernel - [PATCH memory-model 7/8] 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1526338533-6044-7-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 May 2018 15:55:32 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...nel.org
Cc:     stern@...land.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@...il.com,
        will.deacon@....com, peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
        npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk,
        luc.maranget@...ia.fr, akiyks@...il.com,
        SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH memory-model 7/8] atomic_ops.rst: Fix wrong example code

From: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>

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>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
---
 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.
-- 
2.5.2