From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Falk Hueffner <falk@debian.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ipc/msg.c "cleanup" breaks fakeroot on Alpha
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 09:41:43 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611040938490.25218@g5.osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061104172954.GA3668@elte.hu>
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Falk Hueffner <falk@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > - struct msg_msg* volatile r_msg;
> > + volatile struct msg_msg *r_msg;
> > };
> >
> > breaks fakeroot on Alpha (variously hangs or oopses). Backing it out
> > of 2.6.19-rc4 fixes the issue. Is it possible that this change (which
> > clearly does change semantics) was made in error?
>
> correct, it was an error, lets back it out.
>
> Another interesting question is: what in the IPC code relies on the
> volatility of this field, and shouldnt it be converted to explicit
> barriers instead?
Absolutely. Anything that depends on "volatile" is broken by definition,
since volatile does _not_ imply memory barriers, and while it may
constrict the compiler in certain ways (and thus effectively make it work
on things like x86 where the memory ordering is fairly easy to get to
work), it is not going to do _anything_ on some other architectures,
except just perhaps make a bug harder to trigger.
Falk - do you have a couple of the oopses (the more, the better: race
conditions tend to have subtle oopses, and with more oopses it is easier
to try to figure out the pattern) that you can point people at, so that we
can get an idea of what's going on.
This looks like a classic case of "volatile is a sign of a bug".
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-04 17:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-04 16:49 Falk Hueffner
2006-11-04 17:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-11-04 17:41 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2006-11-04 18:12 ` Falk Hueffner
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611041019180.25218@g5.osdl.org>
2006-11-05 16:02 ` Manfred Spraul
2006-11-06 5:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2006-11-06 6:23 ` Manfred Spraul
2006-11-06 16:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.64.0611040938490.25218@g5.osdl.org \
--to=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=falk@debian.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®