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  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]
Date:	Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:35:31 +0200
From:	Stefan Richter <>
To:	Satyam Sharma <>
CC:	Christoph Lameter <>,
	Chris Snook <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,,,, Andrew Morton <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,
	Herbert Xu <>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all

Satyam Sharma wrote:
> [ BTW, why do we want the compiler to not optimize atomic_read()'s in
>   the first place? Atomic ops guarantee atomicity, which has nothing
>   to do with "volatility" -- users that expect "volatility" from
>   atomic ops are the ones who must be fixed instead, IMHO. ]

LDD3 says on page 125:  "The following operations are defined for the
type [atomic_t] and are guaranteed to be atomic with respect to all
processors of an SMP computer."

Doesn't "atomic WRT all processors" require volatility?
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== =--- -====
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists