From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932440AbXGWSdD (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:33:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1765264AbXGWScr (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:32:47 -0400 Received: from mx1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:51621 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764277AbXGWScq (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:32:46 -0400 From: Andi Kleen Organization: SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Nuernberg, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) To: Satyam Sharma Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] i386: bitops: Rectify bogus "Ir" constraints Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:32:28 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , David Howells , Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton References: <20070723160528.22137.84144.sendpatchset@cselinux1.cse.iitk.ac.in> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707232032.28815.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 23 July 2007 20:14:52 Satyam Sharma wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote: > > > > > > * The "I" constraint modifier is applicable only to immediate-value operands, > > > and combining it with "r" is bogus. > > > > This is wrong too. > > > > The whole point of a "Ir" modifier is to say that the instruction takes > > *either* an "I" or an "r". > > Yup, sorry about this one, Andi pointed this out earlier. But the "I" > must still go I think, for the third reason in that changelog -- it > unnecessarily limits the bit offset to 0..31, but (at least from the > comment up front in that file) we do allow arbitrarily large @nr (upto > 255, of course, these instructions won't take anything greater than that). As HPA pointed out that would risk not being correctly assembled by at least some binutils versions > > Andrew - the ones I've looked at were all wrong. Please don't take this > > series. > > I think I'll rescind the series anyway, a lot of patches turned out to > be wrong -- some due to mis-reading / incorrect gcc docs, others due to > other reasons ... this was just something I did thinking of as a cleanup > anyway, so I don't intend to push or correct this or anything. cpumask_t/nodemask_t bitmap optimizations would be useful. -Andi