On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 01:18:54PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> >
> > So it looks like we have a purely syntactic patch that does something
> > different than the original code in one of the above places. What am I
> > missing?
> >
>
> +static inline void clflush(volatile void *__p)
> +{
> + asm volatile("clflush %0" : "+m" (*(char __force *)__p));
> ^
> +}
Ok, let's try again:
You're changing this (pageattr.c)
asm volatile("clflush (%0)" :: "r" (adr + i));
into this:
asm volatile("clflush %0" : "+m" (*(char __force*)(adr + i)));
The original one calls clflush with (adr + i), the new one with (*(adr
+ i)). Are these calls equivalent? if not, and I don't think they are,
you are changing the semantics of the code (presumably, because it
fixes a bug), and *that should be a separate patch*.
Cheers,
Muli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
