From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc: Add tests for sPAPR h-calls Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:37:59 +0100 Message-ID: <56D6D097.5010109@redhat.com> References: <1456908043-11184-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <56D6BB7B.70401@redhat.com> <56D6C6C2.3000207@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: dgibson@redhat.com To: Thomas Huth , Laurent Vivier , kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, drjones@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:33852 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751144AbcCBLiE (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2016 06:38:04 -0500 In-Reply-To: <56D6C6C2.3000207@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/03/2016 11:56, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > + > > > + asm volatile (" sc 1 " : "+r"(r3), "=r"(r4) : "r"(r3)); > > > > as you use "+r" with r3 in the output operands field, I think you don't > > have to declare it in the input operands field. > > Ah, ok, ... gcc inline assembly is always confusing... > Paolo, Andrew, shall I sent a new version for fixing this nit, or is it > ok to keep it in the current, slightly redundant shape? I guess the current one is fine because of the asm register in the declarations. The "really correct" one would use "=r" in the r3 output and "0" in the r3 input, I think. Paolo