Re: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Jan Beulich
Date: Monday, March 17, 2008 - 2:16 am

>> --- linux-2.6.25-rc5/include/asm-x86/bitops.h	2008-03-10 13:24:33.000000000 +0100

That's not very desirable: For one part, because there are uses of
bitops on arrays of ints (and casting these up isn't fully correct on
x86-64 because of the same reason that using the bitops on char
arrays isn't correct (see the other response I sent to Jeremy's reply),
but also because operating on longs requires REX prefixes n x86-64,
hence making the code bigger for no good reason.


Not really, since BASE_ADDR is an input, whereas ADDR is an output.
However, ultimately all uses of ADDR should go (since even if any of
the functions needs the memory clobber to stay, using an input for
specifying the array base address is sufficient - such operations simply
don't need an exact "m" output operand then).

Jan

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes, Jan Beulich, (Thu Mar 13, 2:08 am)
Re: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes, H. Peter Anvin, (Fri Mar 14, 12:51 am)
Re: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes, Jan Beulich, (Fri Mar 14, 1:09 am)
Re: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Fri Mar 14, 11:56 am)
Re: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes, Chuck Ebbert, (Fri Mar 14, 2:07 pm)
Re: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes, Jan Beulich, (Mon Mar 17, 2:08 am)
Re: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes, Jan Beulich, (Mon Mar 17, 2:16 am)
Re: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes, H. Peter Anvin, (Wed Mar 19, 6:19 am)
Re: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Mar 21, 6:54 am)