Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:05:12 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <>
Cc: Marco Elver <>,
	Nick Desaulniers <>,
	Sami Tolvanen <>,
	Masahiro Yamada <>,
	Will Deacon <>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
	Kees Cook <>,
	clang-built-linux <>,
	Kernel Hardening <>,
	linux-arch <>,
	Linux ARM <>,
	Linux Kbuild mailing list <>,
	LKML <>,,
	"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] add support for Clang LTO

On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 07:06:54AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> The current state in the C++ committee is that marking variables
> carrying dependencies is the way forward.  This is of course not what
> the Linux kernel community does, but it should not be hard to have a
> -fall-variables-dependent or some such that causes all variables to be
> treated as if they were marked.  Though I was hoping for only pointers.
> Are they -sure- that they -absolutely- need to carry dependencies
> through integers???

What's 'need'? :-)

I'm thinking __ktime_get_fast_ns() is better off with a dependent load
than it is with an extra smp_rmb().

Yes we can stick an smp_rmb() in there, but I don't like it. Like I
wrote earlier, if I wanted a control dependency, I'd have written one.

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.