Home » Mailing list archives » linux-kernel » 2008 » August » 16

Re: [PATCH] x86_64 : support atomic ops with 64 bits integer values

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
[view in full thread]
From: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Joe Perches <joe@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64 : support atomic ops with 64 bits integer values
Date: Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 11:04 am

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

This is correct; this is in fact true for all instructions except "mov".

Whether it's sign- or zero-extending is sometimes subtle, but not in 
these cases.

Do you happen to know if this is a manifest bug in the current kernel 
(i.e. if there is anywhere we're using more than ±2 GB as a constant to 
these functions?)

Either way, I'll queue this up to tip:x86/urgent if Ingo hasn't already 
since this is a pure bug fix.

	-hpa
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] x86_64 : support atomic ops with 64 bits integer val..., Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sat Aug 16, 3:39 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 : support atomic ops with 64 bits integer..., H. Peter Anvin, (Sat Aug 16, 11:04 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 : support atomic ops with 64 bits integer..., Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sat Aug 16, 11:43 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 : support atomic ops with 64 bits integer..., Linus Torvalds, (Sat Aug 16, 1:30 pm)
[RFC PATCH] Fair rwlock, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sat Aug 16, 5:19 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair rwlock, Linus Torvalds, (Sat Aug 16, 5:33 pm)
[RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v3, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sun Aug 17, 3:53 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v3, Linus Torvalds, (Sun Aug 17, 12:17 pm)
[RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sun Aug 17, 3:10 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Peter Zijlstra, (Mon Aug 25, 3:20 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Paul E. McKenney, (Mon Aug 18, 7:25 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Tue Aug 19, 2:04 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Tue Aug 19, 3:33 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Aug 19, 12:48 pm)
[RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Thu Aug 21, 4:50 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Aug 21, 5:00 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, H. Peter Anvin, (Thu Aug 21, 5:26 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Aug 21, 5:41 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Aug 21, 5:15 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sat Aug 23, 1:09 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Sat Aug 23, 2:02 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sat Aug 23, 4:30 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Sat Aug 23, 5:40 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Aug 21, 6:22 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Tue Aug 19, 5:06 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Aug 18, 2:59 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5 (updated benchmar..., Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sun Aug 17, 5:30 pm)