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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:29:01 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> To: Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky@...ux.intel.com> CC: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>, Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>, "Veeraiyan, Ayyappan" <ayyappan.veeraiyan@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: Introduce new 10GbE driver for Intel 82598 based PCI Express adapters... Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote: > On Tuesday 03 July 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote: >> Access to bitfields are not atomic within the machine int in which they >> are stored... you need to "unpack" the values stored in bitfields, even >> if they are single-bit bitfields. > > Which we do manually when we don't use bitfields. Again, conceptually, > there is no difference. Practically speaking -- there are differences. The "manual" method hides nothing from the programmer, while use of bitfields hides the lack of atomicity. When you have programmers who make mistakes -- i.e. real humans -- these things matter. But overall, it is not any one detail that discourages use of bitfields; it is the sum of all the reasons. Practical experience, compiler technology, mistakes made (and not made), all point to avoiding bitfields. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists