From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Kenneth W" Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:47:34 +0000 Subject: [Linux-ia64] RE: memcpy failure Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org David, I was thinking along the same line as returning void for memcpy. And that is what implemented in memcpy_mck.S. r8 is initialized to zero in the code path mainly for copy_user. I suppose I should follow the convention since everyone except me expect memcpy to return dest pointer and actually use the return value ;-) I can work on that although I need to shuffle some instruction around to avoid expand the code size and worsen the copy throughput. - Ken -----Original Message----- From: David Mosberger [mailto:davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:52 PM To: Chen, Kenneth W Cc: Christian Cotte-Barrot; David Mosberger; Stephane Eranian Subject: RE: memcpy failure >>>>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:29:23 -0800, "Chen, Kenneth W" said: Ken> The retrun value for memcpy doesn't follow the user space Ken> memcpy exactly. kernel memcpy always return 0. Why are you saying this? As far as I know, the kernel memcpy() is expected to return the (initial) destination address. Perhaps you're thinking of copy_user()? (If it was up to me, memcpy() would be returning void...). --david