From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Luca Barbieri <luca@luca-barbieri.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86-32: improve atomic64_t functions (v2)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:35:31 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B8B6E43.9030305@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ff13bc9a1002260323k6b3f38ah4f0505e401dcf77d@mail.gmail.com>
On 02/26/2010 03:23 AM, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> Sent patches, both to conditionally perform the test and implement the
> functions for x86 and x86-64.
Yes, and with the test turned on, the kernel crashes immediately on boot
on x86-64.
Some minor investigation reveals the following:
lib/atomic64.c has the wrong return value for atomic64_add_unless().
With "wrong" I mean it is the opposite sense compared to
atomic_add_unless(), not just on x86 but on all architectures.
Accordingly, I have to conclude that lib/atomic64.c is buggy, and that
since your test matches that bug, I will have to conclude that your
x86-32 implementation is also buggy. Thus, please send patches to fix
your test and your 32-bit implementations (and preferrably
lib/atomic64.c too, but I can do that just fine.)
Cc: Paul Mackerras who did the generic atomic64_t implementation for
verification that this is indeed a bug.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-01 7:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-19 17:26 [PATCH 0/5] x86-32: improve atomic64_t functions (v2) Luca Barbieri
2010-02-19 17:26 ` [PATCH 1/5] x86: add support for relative CALL and JMP in alternatives (v2) Luca Barbieri
2010-02-19 17:26 ` [PATCH 2/5] x86: add support for lock prefix " Luca Barbieri
2010-02-19 17:26 ` [PATCH 3/5] x86-32: allow UP/SMP lock replacement in cmpxchg64 (v2) Luca Barbieri
2010-02-19 17:26 ` [PATCH 4/5] lib: add self-test for atomic64_t Luca Barbieri
2010-02-19 17:26 ` [PATCH 5/5] x86-32: rewrite 32-bit atomic64 functions in assembly (v2) Luca Barbieri
2010-02-23 22:47 ` [PATCH 0/5] x86-32: improve atomic64_t functions (v2) H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-24 9:56 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-26 10:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-02-26 11:08 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-26 11:23 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-03-01 7:35 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2010-03-01 8:49 ` Paul Mackerras
2010-03-01 17:16 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-03-01 17:31 ` Luca Barbieri
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=4B8B6E43.9030305@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca@luca-barbieri.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/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