RE: [PATCH] x86: bitops: fix build regression

[hpa]

On May 7, 2020 8:09:35 AM PDT, David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>From: Brian Gerst
>> Sent: 07 May 2020 14:32
>...
>> I think the bug this worked around was that the compiler didn't
>detect
>> that CONST_MASK(nr) was also constant and doesn't need to be put into
>> a register.  The question is does that bug still exist on compiler
>> versions we care about?
>
>Hmmm...
>That ought to have been fixed instead of worrying about the fact
>that an invalid register was used.
>
>Alternatively is there any reason not to use the bts/btc instructions?
>Yes, I know they'll do wider accesses, but variable bit numbers do.
>It is also possible that the assembler will support constant bit
>numbers >= 32 by adding to the address offset.
>
>	David
>
>-
>Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes,
>MK1 1PT, UK
>Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

They're slower, and for unaligned locked fields can be severely so.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.