lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:45:18 -0700 From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, frank.arnold@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:x86/mce] x86/bitops: Move BIT_64() for a wider use On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:42 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote: > On 05/23/2012 09:40 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > And it doesn't work in assembly. However, I really question the assumption. The asm case is *trivial*. asm cannot handle anything but constant shifts anyway, so the BIT() constness rules would remain. But since asm doesn't have any integer types, you simply do #ifdef __ASSEMBLY__ #define BIT(x) (1<<(x)) #else .. the C type-morphing one .. #endif As to questioning the assumption, you're simply wrong. BIT(0) absolutely MUST NOT be a 64-bit value on a 32-bit kernel. End of discussion. This isn't an "assumption", it's an axiom. Linus -- 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