[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFx7KA-inJJog0v_cAsU0S2FeAN61pyvoUO8pbaxEAWFag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:42:37 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/mm] x86, mm: Use a bitfield to mask nuisance get_user() warnings
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:21 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 02/11/2013 07:33 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> Has anybody run this past any gcc developers? And if so, did they run
>> away screaming?
>
> I haven't no... H.J., any comments on this patch?
I'd be most worried about any known pitfalls about bitfield code
generation. Looking at your code size numbers, it actually seems to
*improve* code generation except for the odd i386.pae case (bigger
code but also a different data size - odd) and i386 noconfig
(different bss, bigger code).
The code/data changes makes me wonder if the variable sometimes gets
flushed to memory as a 8-byte entry, and maybe there are things gcc
people can suggest..
But I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with it. Certainly it
looks much better than the disgusting and warning-prone
unsigned long long __val_gu8
thing.
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