Re: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes

[Jan Beulich]

>>> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> 14.03.08 08:51 >>>
>Jan Beulich wrote:
>> 
>> I'd really like understand, though, what the policy of (not) having a
>> "memory" clobber in these operations is - currently, this appears to
>> be totally inconsistent. Also, many comments of the non-atomic
>> functions say those may also be re-ordered - this contradicts the use
>> of "asm volatile" in there, which again I'd like to understand.
>> 
>
>In general, proper "m" constraints are better than "memory" clobbers, 
>since they give gcc more information.  Note that the "m" constraint 
>doesn't actually have to be *manifest* in the assembly string.

... which is the case with the patch applied.

So am I taking this as 'yes, a proper re-write of these routines is
worthwhile'? But - you didn't comment on the other issues raised,
so before getting to that I'll have to wait to see what's the reason
(if any) for the other anomalies.

Jan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/