[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801060200.51166.mboton@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 02:00:50 +0100
From: Miguel Botón <mboton.lkml@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Miguel Botón <mboton.lkml@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: ioport_{32|64}.c unification
On Sunday 06 January 2008 01:47:47 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> This #ifdef overload could probably be avoided if you just move
> the body of this function into an extra place and do
>
> static int do_iopl(unsigned int level, unsigned long *flags)
> {
> unsigned int old = (*flags >> 12) & 3;
> ...
> *flags = (*flags & ~X86_EFLAGS_IOPL) | (level << 12);;
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> asmlinkage long sys_iopl(unsigned long regsp)
> {
> /* why is this volatle anyway? */
> volatile struct pt_regs *regs = (struct pt_regs *)®sp;
> unsigned int level = regs->bx;
> return do_iopl(regs->bx, ®s->flags);
> }
> #else
> asmlinkage long sys_iopl(unsigned int level, struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> return do_iopl(level, ®s->flags);
> }
> #endif
>
> Arnd <><
I agree. I'll send the a proper patch soon.
--
Miguel Botón
--
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