[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070721204458.GG1193@rhun.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:44:58 +0300
From: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Create clflush() inline, remove hardcoded wbinvd
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 01:18:54PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> >
> > So it looks like we have a purely syntactic patch that does something
> > different than the original code in one of the above places. What am I
> > missing?
> >
>
> +static inline void clflush(volatile void *__p)
> +{
> + asm volatile("clflush %0" : "+m" (*(char __force *)__p));
> ^
> +}
Ok, let's try again:
You're changing this (pageattr.c)
asm volatile("clflush (%0)" :: "r" (adr + i));
into this:
asm volatile("clflush %0" : "+m" (*(char __force*)(adr + i)));
The original one calls clflush with (adr + i), the new one with (*(adr
+ i)). Are these calls equivalent? if not, and I don't think they are,
you are changing the semantics of the code (presumably, because it
fixes a bug), and *that should be a separate patch*.
Cheers,
Muli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists