I wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: >> You might find that these places that appear to need barriers are >> buggy for other reasons anyway. Can you point to some in-tree code >> we can have a look at? > > I could, or could not, if I were through with auditing the code. I > remembered one case and posted it (nodemgr_host_thread) which was safe > because msleep_interruptible provided the necessary barrier there, and > this implicit barrier is not in danger to be removed by future patches. PS, just in case anybody holds his breath for more example code from me, I don't plan to continue with an actual audit of the drivers I maintain. It's an important issue, but my current time budget will restrict me to look at it ad hoc, per case. (Open bugs have higher priority than potential bugs.) -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== =--- =---= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch] add kdump_after_notifier
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] rtc: Make rtc-ds1742 driver hotplug-aware
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Next by thread: LDD3 pitfalls (was Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures)
- Index(es):