On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Cough... sorry for off-topic question,
>
> static inline int test_and_set_bit(long nr, volatile unsigned long
> *addr)
> {
> int oldbit;
>
> asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "bts %2,%1\n\t"
> "sbb %0,%0" : "=r" (oldbit), ADDR : "Ir" (nr) :
> "memory");
>
> doesn't this mean that "ADDR" doesn't need "+" as well?
We use ADDR for some of the non-barrier ones too, that don't have the
barrier. See clear_bit() and friends..
> Or at least, perhaps it makes sense to identify the include file which
> makes the difference. Say, revert the changes in bitops.h, retest, then
> in atomic.h if the kernel still fails, etc.
Yeah, except Fengguang is the only one seeing this in his automated tests..
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
