[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F041A65@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 23:21:53 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com>,
"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Émeric Maschino <emeric.maschino@...il.com>,
Patrick Baggett <baggett.patrick@...il.com>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [regression] Re: [PATCH 2/3] futex: Sanitize
cmpxchg_futex_value_locked API
> It doesn't look like the return value (r8) is actually being set beyond
> initialized to 0. If there is some ia64 instruction that modifies it, GCC
> doesn't know about it from the inline assembly (r8 doesn't appear in the
> inputs/outputs list). From looking at the x86 version (agh, inline asm is
> hard to parse), it does modify the return value based on whether the
> comparison was a success or not, and the return value is certainly used by
> the callers.
The commit comment for the change makes it sound like the return value
is an error code (-ENOSYS if the function isn't implemented/configured;
-EFAULT if the user address is bogus) - or zero if nothing bad happened.
Not "the comparison was a success or not".
What's the real answer? The ia64 code is returning 0 regardless of whether the
compare/exchange found the old value or not. Is this a bad assumption?
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists