On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:06:36 +0100 "David Laight" <david.lai...@aculab.com> wrote:
> > Looks the problem is worse than above, not only bitfields are affected, the > > adjacent fields might be involved too, see: > > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/478657/ > > Not mentioned in there is that even with x86/amd64 given > a struct with the following adjacent fields: > char a; > char b; > char c; > then foo->b |= 0x80; might do a 32bit RMW cycle. There are processors that will do this for the char case at least as they do byte ops by a mix of 32bit ops and rotate. > This will (well might - but probably does) happen > if compiled to a 'BTS' instruction. > The x86 instruction set docs are actually unclear > as to whether the 32bit cycle might even be misaligned! > amd64 might do a 64bit cycle (not checked the docs). Even with a suitably aligned field the compiler is at liberty to generate things like reg = 0x80 reg |= foo->b foo->b = reg; One reason it's a good idea to use set_bit/test_bit and friends. Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
