netdev - Re: [PATCH 24/24] document volatile atomic

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, 09 Aug 2007 14:10:33 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
CC:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, wjiang@...ilience.com,
	wensong@...ux-vs.org, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	horms@...ge.net.au, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net, zlynx@....org,
	rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/24] document volatile atomic_read() behavior

Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> Anyway, what's the supposed advantage of *(volatile *) vs. using
> a real volatile object?  That you can access that same object in
> a non-volatile way?

That's my understanding.  That way accesses where you don't care about 
volatility may be optimised.

For instance, in cases where there are already other things controlling 
visibility (as are needed for atomic increment, for example) you don't 
need to make the access itself volatile.

Chris
-
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