On 03/13/2008 05:08 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
quoted text
> This (simplified) piece of code didn't behave as expected due to
> incorrect constraints in some of the bitops functions, when
> X86_FEATURE_xxx is referring to other than the first long:
> 
> int test(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) {
> 	if (cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_xxx))
> 		clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_xxx);
> 	return cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_xxx);
> }
> 

This is a long-standing bug and your patch appears to fix it.

quoted text
> --- linux-2.6.25-rc5/include/asm-x86/bitops.h	2008-03-10 13:24:33.000000000 +0100
> +++ 2.6.25-rc5-x86-clear-bit/include/asm-x86/bitops.h	2008-03-13 08:45:40.000000000 +0100
> @@ -24,9 +24,12 @@
>  /* Technically wrong, but this avoids compilation errors on some gcc
>     versions. */
>  #define ADDR "=m" (*(volatile long *) addr)
> +#define BIT_ADDR "=m" (((volatile int *) addr)[nr >> 5])
>  #else
>  #define ADDR "+m" (*(volatile long *) addr)
> +#define BIT_ADDR "+m" (((volatile int *) addr)[nr >> 5])
>  #endif
> +#define BASE_ADDR "m" (*(volatile int *) addr)

Can't you just do everything with unsigned longs, like this?

In include/asm-x86/types.h:

 ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
 # define BITS_PER_LONG 32
+# define BITMAP_ORDER 5
 #else
 # define BITS_PER_LONG 64
+# define BITMAP_ORDER 6
 #endif

Then:

quoted text
>  #define ADDR "=m" (*(volatile long *) addr)
> +#define BIT_ADDR "=m" (((volatile long *) addr)[nr >> BITMAP_ORDER])
>  #else
>  #define ADDR "+m" (*(volatile long *) addr)
> +#define BIT_ADDR "+m" (((volatile long *) addr)[nr >> BITMAP_ORDER])
>  #endif

No need for BASE_ADDR that way (or ADDR could be renamed to that.)
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/