linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] smp_mb__{before,after}

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:   Wed, 6 Nov 2019 20:23:03 +0100
From:   Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, 1vier1@....de,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic(): Update Documentation

Hi Will,

On 11/1/19 5:49 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Manfred,
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 02:33:01PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>> When adding the _{acquire|release|relaxed}() variants of some atomic
>> operations, it was forgotten to update Documentation/memory_barrier.txt:
>>
>> smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() is now intended for all RMW operations
>> that do not imply a memory barrier.
> [...]
>
> Although I think this is correct, I really think we should instead refer to
> Documentation/atomic_t.txt and get rid of this out of memory-barriers.txt
> entirely. It's just duplication and is out of date.

So you would prefer the attached patch?

For me this would be fine, too.


--

     Manfred


View attachment "0001-smp_mb__-before-after-_atomic-Update-Documentation.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (2348 bytes)