From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix variable_test_bit()
 asmconstraints
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:57:28 +0000
Message-ID: <C40034C8.15036%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
References: <47DA90EE.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <47DA90EE.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 14/3/08 13:51, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:

>> because at least I'm certain that works. Same for 'asm volatile'. We've had
>> various problems with the bitops before, and I just want the darn things to
>> work!
> 
> Okay, if you feel that way then I guess I won't propose changing it,
> at the expense of slightly worse code generation.

Frankly I'm scared to change it for the minuscule benefit we would derive
from it.

Regarding your other reply: I would actually be happy to change the bitops
to work with longs only. I suspect, and would need to have demonstrated
otherwise, that supporting bitops on arbitrary-width fields down to the
instruction level is not really worthwhile. Either way, I accept that what
we do now is dubious at best.

 -- Keir