[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <253E93DC-CC61-4AD5-AA87-81674B55C25A@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 03:54:35 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
CC: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86/asm: delete dummy variables in movdir64b()
On March 7, 2025 3:49:26 AM PST, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>* Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Cast to pointer-to-array instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/include/asm/special_insns.h | 9 +++------
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/special_insns.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/special_insns.h
>> index d349aa0f0a83..b24c6c945c38 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/special_insns.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/special_insns.h
>> @@ -215,13 +215,10 @@ static __always_inline void serialize(void)
>> /* The dst parameter must be 64-bytes aligned */
>> static inline void movdir64b(void *dst, const void *src)
>> {
>> - const struct { char _[64]; } *__src = src;
>> - struct { char _[64]; } *__dst = dst;
>> -
>> /*
>> * MOVDIR64B %(rdx), rax.
>> *
>> - * Both __src and __dst must be memory constraints in order to tell the
>> + * Both src and dst must be memory constraints in order to tell the
>> * compiler that no other memory accesses should be reordered around
>> * this one.
>> *
>> @@ -230,8 +227,8 @@ static inline void movdir64b(void *dst, const void *src)
>> * I.e., not the pointers but what they point to, thus the deref'ing '*'.
>> */
>> asm volatile(".byte 0x66, 0x0f, 0x38, 0xf8, 0x02"
>> - : "+m" (*__dst)
>> - : "m" (*__src), "a" (__dst), "d" (__src));
>> + : "+m" (*(char(*)[64])dst)
>> + : "m" (*(const char(*)[64])src), "a" (dst), "d" (src));
>
>In what world is putting type casts inside asm() statements an
>improvement to the code?
>
>Thanks,
>
> Ingo
I second that sentiment. This is a net negative.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists