linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 cmpxchg 12/13] sh: Emulate one-byte cmpxchg

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 07:11:52 +0200
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 elver@...gle.com,  akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
 peterz@...radead.org,  dianders@...omium.org, pmladek@...e.com,
 arnd@...db.de,  torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, kernel-team@...a.com, Andi
 Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>,
 Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 cmpxchg 12/13] sh: Emulate one-byte cmpxchg

On Wed, 2024-05-01 at 22:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Does cmpxchg_emu_u8() have any advantages over the native xchg_u8()?
> 
> That would be 8-bit xchg() rather than 8-byte cmpxchg(), correct?

Indeed. I realized this after sending my reply.

> Or am I missing something subtle here that makes sh also support one-byte
> (8-bit) cmpxchg()?

Is there an explanation available that explains the rationale behind the
series, so I can learn more about it?

Also, I am opposed to removing Alpha entirely as it's still being actively
maintained in Debian and Gentoo and works well.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913