linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] zram: Replace bit spinlocks with a spinlock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240708033228.GB797471@google.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:32:28 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Cc: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] zram: Replace bit spinlocks with a spinlock_t.

On (24/07/08 12:03), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> > I meant
> > 
> > 	for (size_t index = 0; index < num_pages; index++)
> > 
> > It's allowed and even recommended for a couple years already.
> 
> I wonder since when?  Do gcc 5.1 and clang 13.0.1 support this?

Since C99.  gcc 5.1/clang 13.0.1 are fine with that.  TIL.