From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:58:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from relay01.mx.bawue.net ([193.7.176.67]:48561 "EHLO
	relay01.mx.bawue.net") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP
	id S20026069AbXKNL6P (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org>);
	Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:58:15 +0000
Received: from lagash (intrt.mips-uk.com [194.74.144.130])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by relay01.mx.bawue.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75E9C48BCB;
	Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:43:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ths by lagash with local (Exim 4.68)
	(envelope-from <ths@networkno.de>)
	id 1IsGsi-0006AR-4m; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:58:08 +0000
Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:58:08 +0000
From:	Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
To:	Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
Cc:	Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
	linux-mips <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce __fill_user() and kill __bzero()
Message-ID: <20071114115807.GL8363@networkno.de>
References: <4736C1EA.2050009@gmail.com> <20071111130130.GB8363@networkno.de> <473AB0B6.2070208@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <473AB0B6.2070208@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11)
Return-Path: <ths@networkno.de>
X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0)
X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
X-archive-position: 17497
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
X-original-sender: ths@networkno.de
Precedence: bulk
X-list: linux-mips

Franck Bui-Huu wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Franck Bui-Huu wrote:
> >>  /*
> >> - * memset(void *s, int c, size_t n)
> >> + * An outline version of memset, which should be used either by gcc or
> >> + * by assembly code.
> >> + */
> >> +NESTED(memset, 24, ra)
> >> +	PTR_ADDU	sp, sp, -24
> >> +	LONG_S		a0, 16(sp)
> >> +	LONG_S		ra, 20(sp)
> >> +	jal		__fill_user
> >> +	LONG_L		v0, 16(sp)
> >> +	LONG_L		ra, 20(sp)
> >> +	PTR_ADDU	sp, sp, 24
> >> +	jr		ra
> >> +END(memset)
> > 
> > This will break on 64bit kernels.
> > 
> 
> Is the following correct ?
> 
> NESTED(memset, 16, ra)
>         PTR_ADDU        sp, sp, -16
>         LONG_S          a0,  8(sp)
>         LONG_S          ra, 16(sp)
>         jal             __fill_user
>         LONG_L          v0,  8(sp)
>         LONG_L          ra, 16(sp)
>         PTR_ADDU        sp, sp, 16
>         jr              ra
> END(memset)
> 
> I know it doesn't respect any mips ABI but in this case do
> we really care ?

In general we do (think of stack unwinding etc.).  I believe this
implementation should move to C, as it doesn't need an assembler
implementation:

void *memset (void *s, int c, kernel_size_t n)
{
	__fill_user(s, c, n);
	return s;
}

It looks much nicer that way. :-)


Thiemo