From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757564AbZLIUDn (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:03:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756975AbZLIUDm (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:03:42 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.158]:21903 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750955AbZLIUDl (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:03:41 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=pOZPAZV5eGsyKm474OxfhfxnAKkrOl3MgSASKKDuytXeb/yN74GAULAsCapZoGUosr hU9KZGhDbsUCZ3jIcqAHtdkyDeZlCV7mpaGvjWPqEMRjeERPl7jKSzVR6x6B6k6AcwsI r9YNwK1rTRcbq4hWHDmHUcmhEy9aAuz5oqcSs= Message-ID: <4B20029F.90405@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:03:43 +0100 From: Jiri Slaby User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; cs-CZ; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091130 SUSE/3.0.0-13.1 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] X86: use explicit register name for get/put_user References: <1260091808-8053-1-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz> <4B1C01F4.8020304@zytor.com> <4B1CF701.3070805@gmail.com> <4B1D4B0C.9030108@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <4B1D4B0C.9030108@zytor.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/07/2009 07:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 12/07/2009 04:37 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote: >> In the document they write only about the "same location" occupied by in >> and out, nothing is said about size (and hence I think we cannot >> mismatch size of operands). And I couldn't find any other >> restrictions/documentation about inline assembly, hence the patch, >> because nothing assured me this cannot change in the future. > > There is almost no documentation at all; some of the little > documentation there is is in comments in the source code. To a first > order of approximation, asm() is defined by behavior, not by a written > spec. Trying to play language lawyer with the little bit that is > written down is pointless -- the gcc people have been more than happy to > break asm() between releases regardless of what is and is not written down. Ok, thanks for the explanation. -- js