[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWz1-KW0Bsa6Xnu2e=wYQwn9ckhSUrroga01rKv3451uA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:35:15 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Junichi Nomura <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/CPU: Add native CPUID variants returning a single datum
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 06:13:24PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Now you call it and ignore the return value and the compiler optimizes
>> it out :)
>
> Does it, really?
>
> It is an inlined asm volatile. I checked all call sites and the CPUID
> call is there. gcc 6 simply issues the CPUID and then later code
> overwrites rAX. I.e., it looks ok to me.
>
> Or what example scenario do you have in mind?
That's why I didn't type "volatile". :)
>
>> Also, someone reading the code might scratch their head and
>> wonder why you picked eax and not ebx, ecx, or edx.
>
> We have comments for her/him :-)
Okay. Anyway, this particular nit is minor and I'll shut up.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
> --
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
Powered by blists - more mailing lists