linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] riscv/bitops: Remove smp_mb__{before,after}_clear

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:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 19:49:06 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] riscv/bitops: Remove
 smp_mb__{before,after}_clear_bit()

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:19:24AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 05:12:24 PDT (-0700), andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com wrote:
> > The barriers are unused; remove their definition.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
> > Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
> > Cc: Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>
> > Cc: <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/riscv/include/asm/bitops.h | 5 -----
> >  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/bitops.h
> > index f30daf26f08f4..01db98dfd0435 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/bitops.h
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/bitops.h
> > @@ -23,11 +23,6 @@
> >  #include <asm/barrier.h>
> >  #include <asm/bitsperlong.h>
> > 
> > -#ifndef smp_mb__before_clear_bit
> > -#define smp_mb__before_clear_bit()  smp_mb()
> > -#define smp_mb__after_clear_bit()   smp_mb()
> > -#endif /* smp_mb__before_clear_bit */
> > -
> >  #include <asm-generic/bitops/__ffs.h>
> >  #include <asm-generic/bitops/ffz.h>
> >  #include <asm-generic/bitops/fls.h>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>

Thank you.


> 
> Do you want me to take this via the RISC-V tree?  I only ended up with patch
> 1/2 in my inbox, and I probably shouldn't take both.

I expected this to go via the RISC-V tree and 2/2 via the H8/300 tree,
but really no preference from me as long as they get upstreamed. ;-)

Thanks,
  Andrea


> 
> Thanks!