linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 2/7] linux/include: add non-atomic version of xchg

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/x9tclWV/lqBMzZ@ashyti-mobl2.lan>
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:53:57 +0100
From:   Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, openrisc@...ts.librecores.org,
        linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 2/7] linux/include: add non-atomic version
 of xchg

Hi Andrzej,

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 04:44:45PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> The pattern of setting variable with new value and returning old
> one is very common in kernel. Usually atomicity of the operation
> is not required, so xchg seems to be suboptimal and confusing in
> such cases.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>

Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>

Thanks,
Andi