From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37920 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ptic6-0003GV-QX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:32:52 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1Ptic5-00061u-R3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:32:50 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59258)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1Ptic5-00061j-Ie
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:32:49 -0500
Message-ID: <4D6A6E9D.5080500@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:32:45 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/3] kvm-unit-tests: add x86 port io
	accessors
References: <1298584085-13129-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>	<1298584085-13129-2-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<4D6A471D.9050802@redhat.com> <4D6A594B.5000603@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4D6A594B.5000603@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org

On 02/27/2011 04:01 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 02/27/2011 06:44 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 02/24/2011 11:48 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori<aliguori@us.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/x86/io.h b/lib/x86/io.h
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..bd6341c
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/lib/x86/io.h
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
>>> +#ifndef IO_H
>>> +#define IO_H
>>> +
>>> +static inline unsigned char inb(unsigned short port)
>>> +{
>>> +    unsigned char value;
>>> +    asm volatile("inb %w1, %0" : "=a" (value) : "Nd" (port));
>>> +    return value;
>>> +}
>>
>> Are those %[wb] really needed?  gcc should do the right thing based 
>> on the argument type.
>
> It's just a little extra type safety.

Yeah, but those constraints aren't really documented.  Linux does use 
them in a handful of places so they're unlikely to go away though.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function