[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxsp-kiHxbp5gFKbGW7KJJyW=53pXnEP1O5q8LVYY6G0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:49:29 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [x86] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 00740060
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Cough... sorry for off-topic question,
>
> static inline int test_and_set_bit(long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
> {
> int oldbit;
>
> asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "bts %2,%1\n\t"
> "sbb %0,%0" : "=r" (oldbit), ADDR : "Ir" (nr) : "memory");
>
> doesn't this mean that "ADDR" doesn't need "+" as well?
We use ADDR for some of the non-barrier ones too, that don't have the
barrier. See clear_bit() and friends..
> Or at least, perhaps it makes sense to identify the include file which
> makes the difference. Say, revert the changes in bitops.h, retest, then
> in atomic.h if the kernel still fails, etc.
Yeah, except Fengguang is the only one seeing this in his automated tests..
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