[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <517AAED5.7040400@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:44:05 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: make DR*_RESERVED unsigned long
On 04/26/2013 09:38 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> DR6_RESERVED and DR_CONTROL_RESERVED are used to clear the set
> bits in the "unsigned long" data, make them long to ensure that
> "&~" doesn't clear the upper bits.
>
> This is only cleanup, the usage of ~DR*_RESERVED is safe but
> doesn't look clean and the pattern is error prone.
>
> - do_debug:
>
> dr6 &= ~DR6_RESERVED;
>
> this also wrongly clears 32-63 bits. Fortunately these
> bits are reserved and must be zero.
>
I don't think this is wrongly at all. The whole point is to mask out
the bits that the handler doesn't want to deal with, so masking out the
reserved bits [63:32] seems reasonable to me.
The comment should probably be corrected, though.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists