Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 08:39 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > I will, unless Rusty does, first. No desire to step on each other. Oh no, please, after you! Rusty. - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 08:39 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: I will, unless Rusty does, first. No desire to step on each other. Oh no, please, after you! Rusty. - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
Andi Kleen wrote: On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 06:06:16PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: Andi Kleen wrote: No processor.h is such a hodgepodge of unrelated stuff that any splitting up is a good thing. Fair enough. However, I'd still like to see the X86_CR* constants moved, too (and constants added for at least CR0 as well.) Send patches then. I will, unless Rusty does, first. No desire to step on each other. -hpa - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 06:06:16PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > > >No processor.h is such a hodgepodge of unrelated stuff that any > >splitting up is a good thing. > > > > Fair enough. However, I'd still like to see the X86_CR* constants > moved, too (and constants added for at least CR0 as well.) Send patches then. -Andi - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 06:06:16PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: Andi Kleen wrote: No processor.h is such a hodgepodge of unrelated stuff that any splitting up is a good thing. Fair enough. However, I'd still like to see the X86_CR* constants moved, too (and constants added for at least CR0 as well.) Send patches then. -Andi - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
Andi Kleen wrote: On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 06:06:16PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: Andi Kleen wrote: No processor.h is such a hodgepodge of unrelated stuff that any splitting up is a good thing. Fair enough. However, I'd still like to see the X86_CR* constants moved, too (and constants added for at least CR0 as well.) Send patches then. I will, unless Rusty does, first. No desire to step on each other. -hpa - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 18:06 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > No processor.h is such a hodgepodge of unrelated stuff that any > > splitting up is a good thing. > > > > Fair enough. However, I'd still like to see the X86_CR* constants > moved, too (and constants added for at least CR0 as well.) Agreed. This was on theory of minimum damage, but since it seems to have received a warm reception, I'd say moving the rest to processor-flags.h would be a welcome addition. Cheers, Rusty. - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
Andi Kleen wrote: No processor.h is such a hodgepodge of unrelated stuff that any splitting up is a good thing. Fair enough. However, I'd still like to see the X86_CR* constants moved, too (and constants added for at least CR0 as well.) -hpa - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 05:29:52PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > > >That patch got dropped, and replaced by one which pulled all the flags > >definitions out of > > > > Saw that a little too late :) > > In general, it would be nice if the various CPU constants were all > defined in one place, so I'd rather suggest protecting the appropriate > parts of asm/processor.h with #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__. No processor.h is such a hodgepodge of unrelated stuff that any splitting up is a good thing. -Andi - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: That patch got dropped, and replaced by one which pulled all the flags definitions out of Saw that a little too late :) In general, it would be nice if the various CPU constants were all defined in one place, so I'd rather suggest protecting the appropriate parts of asm/processor.h with #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__. -hpa - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Rusty Russell wrote: > >> There is now more than one place where we use the fact that bit 9 of >> eflags is the interrupt-enabled flag, so define EFLAGS_IF. We make it >> 512 so it can be used in asm, too. >> > > How about defining all the other EFLAGS in one place? > That patch got dropped, and replaced by one which pulled all the flags definitions out of J - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
Rusty Russell wrote: There is now more than one place where we use the fact that bit 9 of eflags is the interrupt-enabled flag, so define EFLAGS_IF. We make it 512 so it can be used in asm, too. How about defining all the other EFLAGS in one place? -hpa - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
Rusty Russell wrote: There is now more than one place where we use the fact that bit 9 of eflags is the interrupt-enabled flag, so define EFLAGS_IF. We make it 512 so it can be used in asm, too. How about defining all the other EFLAGS in one place? -hpa - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
H. Peter Anvin wrote: Rusty Russell wrote: There is now more than one place where we use the fact that bit 9 of eflags is the interrupt-enabled flag, so define EFLAGS_IF. We make it 512 so it can be used in asm, too. How about defining all the other EFLAGS in one place? That patch got dropped, and replaced by one which pulled all the flags definitions out of asm/processor.h J - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: That patch got dropped, and replaced by one which pulled all the flags definitions out of asm/processor.h Saw that a little too late :) In general, it would be nice if the various CPU constants were all defined in one place, so I'd rather suggest protecting the appropriate parts of asm/processor.h with #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__. -hpa - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 05:29:52PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: That patch got dropped, and replaced by one which pulled all the flags definitions out of asm/processor.h Saw that a little too late :) In general, it would be nice if the various CPU constants were all defined in one place, so I'd rather suggest protecting the appropriate parts of asm/processor.h with #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__. No processor.h is such a hodgepodge of unrelated stuff that any splitting up is a good thing. -Andi - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
Andi Kleen wrote: No processor.h is such a hodgepodge of unrelated stuff that any splitting up is a good thing. Fair enough. However, I'd still like to see the X86_CR* constants moved, too (and constants added for at least CR0 as well.) -hpa - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 18:06 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: Andi Kleen wrote: No processor.h is such a hodgepodge of unrelated stuff that any splitting up is a good thing. Fair enough. However, I'd still like to see the X86_CR* constants moved, too (and constants added for at least CR0 as well.) Agreed. This was on theory of minimum damage, but since it seems to have received a warm reception, I'd say moving the rest to processor-flags.h would be a welcome addition. Cheers, Rusty. - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 14:16 +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > There is now more than one place where we use the fact that bit 9 of > eflags is the interrupt-enabled flag, so define EFLAGS_IF. We make it > 512 so it can be used in asm, too. Belay this: there's a X86_EFLAGS_IF in asm/processor.h which we should use. Will send patch. Thanks to Jeremy Fitzhardinge for the clue. Rusty. - 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/
[PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
There is now more than one place where we use the fact that bit 9 of
eflags is the interrupt-enabled flag, so define EFLAGS_IF. We make it
512 so it can be used in asm, too.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- a/arch/i386/lguest/lguest.c
+++ b/arch/i386/lguest/lguest.c
@@ -107,9 +107,8 @@ static void fastcall irq_disable(void)
static void fastcall irq_enable(void)
{
- /* Linux i386 code expects bit 9 set. */
/* FIXME: Check if interrupt pending... */
- lguest_data.irq_enabled = 512;
+ lguest_data.irq_enabled = EFLAGS_IF;
}
static void fastcall lguest_load_gdt(const struct Xgt_desc_struct *desc)
@@ -394,7 +393,7 @@ static fastcall void lguest_write_idt_en
extern const char start_##name[], end_##name[]; \
asm("start_" #name ": " code "; end_" #name ":")
DEF_LGUEST(cli, "movl $0," LGUEST_IRQ);
-DEF_LGUEST(sti, "movl $512," LGUEST_IRQ);
+DEF_LGUEST(sti, "movl $"__stringify(EFLAGS_IF)"," LGUEST_IRQ);
DEF_LGUEST(popf, "movl %eax," LGUEST_IRQ);
DEF_LGUEST(pushf, "movl " LGUEST_IRQ ",%eax");
DEF_LGUEST(pushf_cli, "movl " LGUEST_IRQ ",%eax; movl $0," LGUEST_IRQ);
===
--- a/include/asm-i386/irqflags.h
+++ b/include/asm-i386/irqflags.h
@@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ static inline unsigned long __raw_local_
#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
+/* Bit 9 of eflags means interrupts are enabled: a raw int for asm. */
+#define EFLAGS_IF 512
+
#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
#define raw_local_save_flags(flags) \
do { (flags) = __raw_local_save_flags(); } while (0)
@@ -96,7 +99,7 @@ static inline unsigned long __raw_local_
static inline int raw_irqs_disabled_flags(unsigned long flags)
{
- return !(flags & (1 << 9));
+ return !(flags & EFLAGS_IF);
}
static inline int raw_irqs_disabled(void)
-
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/
[PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
There is now more than one place where we use the fact that bit 9 of
eflags is the interrupt-enabled flag, so define EFLAGS_IF. We make it
512 so it can be used in asm, too.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- a/arch/i386/lguest/lguest.c
+++ b/arch/i386/lguest/lguest.c
@@ -107,9 +107,8 @@ static void fastcall irq_disable(void)
static void fastcall irq_enable(void)
{
- /* Linux i386 code expects bit 9 set. */
/* FIXME: Check if interrupt pending... */
- lguest_data.irq_enabled = 512;
+ lguest_data.irq_enabled = EFLAGS_IF;
}
static void fastcall lguest_load_gdt(const struct Xgt_desc_struct *desc)
@@ -394,7 +393,7 @@ static fastcall void lguest_write_idt_en
extern const char start_##name[], end_##name[]; \
asm(start_ #name : code ; end_ #name :)
DEF_LGUEST(cli, movl $0, LGUEST_IRQ);
-DEF_LGUEST(sti, movl $512, LGUEST_IRQ);
+DEF_LGUEST(sti, movl $__stringify(EFLAGS_IF), LGUEST_IRQ);
DEF_LGUEST(popf, movl %eax, LGUEST_IRQ);
DEF_LGUEST(pushf, movl LGUEST_IRQ ,%eax);
DEF_LGUEST(pushf_cli, movl LGUEST_IRQ ,%eax; movl $0, LGUEST_IRQ);
===
--- a/include/asm-i386/irqflags.h
+++ b/include/asm-i386/irqflags.h
@@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ static inline unsigned long __raw_local_
#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
+/* Bit 9 of eflags means interrupts are enabled: a raw int for asm. */
+#define EFLAGS_IF 512
+
#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
#define raw_local_save_flags(flags) \
do { (flags) = __raw_local_save_flags(); } while (0)
@@ -96,7 +99,7 @@ static inline unsigned long __raw_local_
static inline int raw_irqs_disabled_flags(unsigned long flags)
{
- return !(flags (1 9));
+ return !(flags EFLAGS_IF);
}
static inline int raw_irqs_disabled(void)
-
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/
Re: [PATCH] Define EFLAGS_IF
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 14:16 +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: There is now more than one place where we use the fact that bit 9 of eflags is the interrupt-enabled flag, so define EFLAGS_IF. We make it 512 so it can be used in asm, too. Belay this: there's a X86_EFLAGS_IF in asm/processor.h which we should use. Will send patch. Thanks to Jeremy Fitzhardinge for the clue. Rusty. - 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/
