[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190308095407.zfezalaysgjialpy@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 09:54:07 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux@...il.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: futex: make futex_detect_cmpxchg more reliable
On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 04:04:23PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:49 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 11:39:08AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > Underspecification of constraints to extended inline assembly is a
> > > common issue exposed by other compilers (and possibly but in-effect
> > > infrequently compiler upgrades).
> >
> > I don't see what is "underspecified" in the original constraints.
> > Please explain.
>
> From the link:
>
> The problem is that in the T(streq) insn, %3 and %4 MUST be different registers,
> but nothing in the asm() constrains them to be different.
Thanks, but that is not what I'm asking. See my reply to Ard.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
Powered by blists - more mailing lists