[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1710051445420.30711@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 14:52:19 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
cc: Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/alternatives: Fix alt_max_short macro to really be
a max()
Hi,
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 02:35:33PM +0200, Mathias Krause wrote:
> > Note the "<"! ...comment is wrong, though the implementation works!
>
> I know, I realized that when I looked at alternative-asm.h. Wanted to
> double-check it with Micha first.
Yeah, for bit-twiddling the result of arithmetic would need to be
booleanized first, or alternatively the boolean operators be used in the
first place. So if '<' works then that's better in this context.
(In a different context, or in the same one there definitely was a problem
with using '<', but I can't remember the details, it's too long ago we
discussed about this; maybe it even was a problem only with some binutils
versions. So I'd suggest using the more obvious way until problems
reoccur, and then document why exactly using relational ops was a problem
;-) )
Ciao,
Michael.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists