Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 11:05:24AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Andi Kleen wrote:
The main reason is that everyone seems to invoke it either incorrectly
>>> Where is it incorrect?
>> Using "r" or "m" (as opposed as "+m") gives gcc the wrong dependency
>> information, an
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 11:05:24AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> The main reason is that everyone seems to invoke it either incorrectly
> > Where is it incorrect?
>
> Using "r" or "m" (as opposed as "+m") gives gcc the wrong dependency
> information, and it could, at least
Andi Kleen wrote:
>> The main reason is that everyone seems to invoke it either incorrectly
> Where is it incorrect?
Using "r" or "m" (as opposed as "+m") gives gcc the wrong dependency
information, and it could, at least in theory, cause memory references
to be moved around it -- especially when
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 02:33:46PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 02:19:58PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> Create an inline function for clflush(), with the proper arguments,
> >> and use it instead of hard-coding the instruction.
> >>
> >> This als
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 03:09:41PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> >
> > Ok, let's try again:
> >
> > You're changing this (pageattr.c)
> >
> > asm volatile("clflush (%0)" :: "r" (adr + i));
> >
> > into this:
> >
> > asm volatile("clflush %0
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>> 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 o
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>
> 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
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(volat
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
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 12:52:26PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> >
> > Mostly looks good, but see below.
> >
> >> diff --git a/drivers/char/agp/efficeon-agp.c
> >> b/drivers/char/agp/efficeon-agp.c
> >> index df8da72..41f46df 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/char/agp/efficeon-ag
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>
> Mostly looks good, but see below.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/char/agp/efficeon-agp.c
>> b/drivers/char/agp/efficeon-agp.c
>> index df8da72..41f46df 100644
>> --- a/drivers/char/agp/efficeon-agp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/char/agp/efficeon-agp.c
>> @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ static int
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 02:19:58PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Create an inline function for clflush(), with the proper arguments,
> and use it instead of hard-coding the instruction.
>
> This also removes one instance of hard-coded wbinvd, based on a patch
> by Bauder de Oliveira Costa.
>
> C
Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 14:19 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Create an inline function for clflush(), with the proper arguments,
>> and use it instead of hard-coding the instruction.
>>
>> This also removes one instance of hard-coded wbinvd, based on a patch
>> by
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 14:19 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Create an inline function for clflush(), with the proper arguments,
> and use it instead of hard-coding the instruction.
>
> This also removes one instance of hard-coded wbinvd, based on a patch
> by Bauder de Oliveira Costa.
Hey, Who's th
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 02:19:58PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Create an inline function for clflush(), with the proper arguments,
>> and use it instead of hard-coding the instruction.
>>
>> This also removes one instance of hard-coded wbinvd, based on a patch
>> by Bauder d
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 02:19:58PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Create an inline function for clflush(), with the proper arguments,
> and use it instead of hard-coding the instruction.
>
> This also removes one instance of hard-coded wbinvd, based on a patch
> by Bauder de Oliveira Costa.
I don
16 matches
Mail list logo
