[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49F8B1F3.90900@garzik.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:00:51 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [x86] Strange 64-bit put_user ?
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> In arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h, if !CONFIG_X86_32, we see
>>
>>> #define __put_user_x8(x, ptr, __ret_pu) \
>>> ({ u64 __ret_pu; __put_user_x(8, x, ptr, __ret_pu);
>>> (int)__ret_pu; })
>> which was preceded by
>>
>>> #define __put_user_x(size, x, ptr, __ret_pu) \
>>> asm volatile("call __put_user_" #size : "=a" (__ret_pu) \
>>> :"0" ((typeof(*(ptr)))(x)), "c" (ptr) : "ebx")
>>
>> My question, from an admitted inline asm newbie:
>>
>> Why is 32-bit register 'ebx' being used for a 64-bit put_user?
>>
>> And a dumb-question follow-up, probably easy, for any x86 expert: why
>> are registers 'bl' and 'bx' not used for 8-bit and 16-bit put_user,
>> respectively?
>>
>
> The answer is simply that gcc doesn't make a distinction between bl, bx,
> ebx, and rbx -- it considers it a single regioster which can contain an
> 8-, 16-, 32- or 64-bit number. In particular, gcc can't use ah, bh, ch,
> and dh as independent registers at all.
So, it isn't really referring to 'ebx' register specifically, it is
referring to the hardware register that contains 'ebx'. Gotcha.
Thanks!
Jeff
--
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