From: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:07:21 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47DAE909.20006@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47D8FD33.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
On 03/13/2008 05:08 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> This (simplified) piece of code didn't behave as expected due to
> incorrect constraints in some of the bitops functions, when
> X86_FEATURE_xxx is referring to other than the first long:
>
> int test(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) {
> if (cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_xxx))
> clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_xxx);
> return cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_xxx);
> }
>
This is a long-standing bug and your patch appears to fix it.
> --- linux-2.6.25-rc5/include/asm-x86/bitops.h 2008-03-10 13:24:33.000000000 +0100
> +++ 2.6.25-rc5-x86-clear-bit/include/asm-x86/bitops.h 2008-03-13 08:45:40.000000000 +0100
> @@ -24,9 +24,12 @@
> /* Technically wrong, but this avoids compilation errors on some gcc
> versions. */
> #define ADDR "=m" (*(volatile long *) addr)
> +#define BIT_ADDR "=m" (((volatile int *) addr)[nr >> 5])
> #else
> #define ADDR "+m" (*(volatile long *) addr)
> +#define BIT_ADDR "+m" (((volatile int *) addr)[nr >> 5])
> #endif
> +#define BASE_ADDR "m" (*(volatile int *) addr)
Can't you just do everything with unsigned longs, like this?
In include/asm-x86/types.h:
ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
# define BITS_PER_LONG 32
+# define BITMAP_ORDER 5
#else
# define BITS_PER_LONG 64
+# define BITMAP_ORDER 6
#endif
Then:
> #define ADDR "=m" (*(volatile long *) addr)
> +#define BIT_ADDR "=m" (((volatile long *) addr)[nr >> BITMAP_ORDER])
> #else
> #define ADDR "+m" (*(volatile long *) addr)
> +#define BIT_ADDR "+m" (((volatile long *) addr)[nr >> BITMAP_ORDER])
> #endif
No need for BASE_ADDR that way (or ADDR could be renamed to that.)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-14 21:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-13 9:08 [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes Jan Beulich
2008-03-14 7:51 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-03-14 8:09 ` Jan Beulich
2008-03-14 18:56 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-03-17 9:08 ` Jan Beulich
2008-03-14 21:07 ` Chuck Ebbert [this message]
2008-03-17 9:16 ` Jan Beulich
2008-03-19 13:19 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-03-21 13:54 ` Ingo Molnar
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-03-27 8:12 Jan Beulich
2008-03-27 8:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-14 12:53 ` Jan Beulich
2008-03-28 19:55 Jan Beulich
2008-04-14 13:31 Jan Beulich
2008-04-14 16:21 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-04-15 7:03 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=47DAE909.20006@redhat.com \
--to=cebbert@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jbeulich@novell.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox