[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:31:59 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
Cc: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>, david@...son.dropbear.id.au
Subject: Re: Conversion from atomic_t to refcount_t: summary of issues
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:19:56PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 28/11/16 23:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:56:17AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> >> First, about the types.
> >> We do have a number of instances of atomic_long_t used as refcounters, see below:
> >
> > Right, those were expected. We could do long_refcount_t I suppose.
> >
> >> And yes, we *do* have at least one instance (again not 100% finished,
> >> more might show up) of atomic64_t used as refcounter:
> >>
> >> arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_iommu.c:
> >> struct mm_iommu_table_group_mem_t {
> >> ...
> >> atomic64_t mapped;
> >> ...
> >> }
> >
> > *urgh*, Alexey does that really need to be atomic64_t ? Wouldn't
> > atomic_long_t work for you?
>
>
> It would, this code only works in 64bit where long==64bit anyway (in fact
> even 32bit variant would do).
>
Thanks, we'll convert it to a 32bit refcount then.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
