On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 09:44:33AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 19/10/2020 à 22:24, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> >>but the associated "<>" constraint is missing.
> >
> >But that is just fine. Pointless, sure, but not a bug.
>
> Most of those are from prehistoric code. So at some point in
Le 19/10/2020 à 22:24, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:12:48PM +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
In several places, inline assembly uses the "%Un" modifier
to enable the use of instruction with pre-update addressing,
Calling this "pre-update" is misleading: the register
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:12:48PM +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> In several places, inline assembly uses the "%Un" modifier
> to enable the use of instruction with pre-update addressing,
Calling this "pre-update" is misleading: the register is not updated
before the address is generated (or the
Le 19/10/2020 à 17:35, kernel test robot a écrit :
Hi Christophe,
I love your patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on powerpc/next]
[also build test ERROR on linus/master next-20201016]
[cannot apply to kvm-ppc/kvm-ppc-next mpe/next v5.9]
[If your patch is applied to the w
Hi Christophe,
I love your patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on powerpc/next]
[also build test ERROR on linus/master next-20201016]
[cannot apply to kvm-ppc/kvm-ppc-next mpe/next v5.9]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submittin
