From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH,
 RFC] Re:  x86: gnttab_clear_flag() abusing clear_bit()
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:33:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CB58FD22.2AC03%keir.xen@gmail.com>
References: <4F3399820200007800071D17@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F3399820200007800071D17@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 09/02/2012 01:01, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

>> Looks fine to me, in principle. I would add a comment to the x86
>> gnttab_clear_flag() explaining why we have to open code something that looks
>> a lot like clear_bit().
> 
> That one I already did, will submit soon (desiring clarification on the
> below).
> 
> As to the "+m" constraint - I'm being told that "+m" (var) is equivalent
> to "=m" (var) : "m" (var), no matter what the documentation says
> regarding '+' (but they're also not seeing a need to adjust the docs
> accordingly).
> 
> The question is whether we should go with the (documentation-wise
> correct) form, or the shorter one (which they're unlikely to change
> the meaning of, given in how many places "+m" is used in e.g. Linux).

You could switch us to "+m" and see how we get on.

 -- Keir