linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h: redefine rmb and wmb to lwsync

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: <Y/XTeBNq1x+ZuyjZ@li-a450e7cc-27df-11b2-a85c-b5a9ac31e8ef.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Feb 2023 14:04:00 +0530
From:   Kautuk Consul <kconsul@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h: redefine rmb and wmb
 to lwsync

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:28:19AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 22/02/2023 à 09:21, Kautuk Consul a écrit :
> >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 07:02:34AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >>>> +/* Redefine rmb() to lwsync. */
> >>>
> >>> WHat's the added value of this comment ? Isn't it obvious in the line
> >>> below that rmb() is being defined to lwsync ? Please avoid useless comments.
> >> Sure.
> > Sorry, forgot to add that I wasn't adding this useless comment.
> > Its just that checkpatch.pl complains that the memory barrier #define
> > doesn't have a comment for it.
> >>>
> 
> See https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/checkpatch.html, it says:
> 
> Checkpatch is not always right. Your judgement takes precedence over 
> checkpatch messages. If your code looks better with the violations, then 
> its probably best left alone.
> 
> checkpatch wants a comment for uses of memory barriers. Here I think it 
> is a false positive.
Cool. I will make the changes you mentioned.
Can you tell me which branch or git repo I should re-make this patch on ?