Re: [PATCH 0/9 RFC] Make wake_up_{bit,var} less fragile

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 15:16, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The argument is more like "we have interfaces that are often used
> wrongly and the resulting bugs are hard to find through testing because
> they don't affect the more popular architectures".

Right, but let's make the fix be that we actually then make those
places use better interfaces that don't _have_ any memory ordering
issues.

THAT is my argument. In the "combined" interface, the problem simply
goes away entirely, rather than being hidden by adding possibly
totally pointless barriers.

                 Linus




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux