linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: userspace-consumer: Use atomic operation

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: <ZOeLjbN8i4i+/kd+@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 24 Aug 2023 17:55:41 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@...ements.com>
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, zev@...ilderbeest.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: userspace-consumer: Use atomic operation

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 04:34:05PM +0530, Naresh Solanki wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 at 20:41, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 04:15:57PM +0200, Naresh Solanki wrote:

> > > Replace mutexes with atomic operations.

> > Why?  Generally atomics are more complicated and hard to understand and
> > get right.

> Since the operations involved here are simple & short & can be managed by
> atomic operation.

Unless there's a strong positive reason to specifically use atomics it
seems better to avoid them, like I say they're full of landmines with
unexpeted behaviours and therefore something that sets off alarm bells
about needing careful study, the mutex is going to be less preformant
but is also much more clearly correct.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)