On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:23:51 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was looking at some of the code we generate, and happened to notice that
> we have this strange situation where the x86 "get_user()" macros generate
> out-of-line code to do all the address verification etc, b
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>
> And in any case is it too much to ask for an 80-column limit? ;)
Yes. Dammit, especially for something like this, the long-line version is
just _so_ much more readable. Compare my and your version wrt being able
to tell what the differences betwe
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 at 18:27:08 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> +/*
> + * Strange magic calling convention: pointer in %ecx,
> + * value in %eax(:%edx), return value in %eax, no clobbers.
> + */
> +extern void __put_user_1(void);
> +extern void __put_user_2(void);
> +extern void __put_user_4(void);
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:27:08PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > That brings up another issue: if I don't care which registers a 64-bit
> > value goes into, can I get the "lo
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:16:15PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I'd happily use your version, but I thought that some versions of gcc
> require that input output registers cannot overlap, and would refuse to do
> that thing? But if you tell me differently..
No, you're thinking of
asm("
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:27:08PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> That brings up another issue: if I don't care which registers a 64-bit
> value goes into, can I get the "low reg" and "high reg" names some way?
Nope. We never needed one in the i386 backend itself, so we never
added anything like
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> I'll take patches from anyone ;)
You'll never live it down. Once you get a name for being easy, you'll
always be known as Andrew "patch-ho" Morton.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
th
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Hmm.. I always thought "A" was the _pairing_ of %eax/%edx, not "eax or
> edx"?
Ahh. Some testing shows that gcc really seems to think of it as "eax or
edx", ie you can do
asm("uglee %0 %1": :"a" (1), "A" (2));
and it will output
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andrew - do you want to put it in -mm?
I'll take patches from anyone ;)
-
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-in
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:20:06PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > +#define __put_user_8(x, ptr) __asm__ __volatile__("call __put_user_8":"=A"
> > (__ret_pu):"0" ((typeof(*(ptr)))(x)), "c" (ptr))
>
> This is not constrained enough. The compiler
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> The first 3 gets lost.
Thanks. So here's v3 (which also removes the now stale __put_user_check()
macro).
Andrew - do you want to put it in -mm?
Linus
---
# This is a BitKeeper generated diff -Nru style patch.
#
# ChangeSet
#
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:20:06PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> +#define __put_user_8(x, ptr) __asm__ __volatile__("call __put_user_8":"=A"
> (__ret_pu):"0" ((typeof(*(ptr)))(x)), "c" (ptr))
This is not constrained enough. The compiler could choose to put the
return value in edx. You want
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:20:06PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> +3: movl %eax,(%ecx)
...
> +3: movl %eax,(%ecx)
> +4: movl %edx,4(%ecx)
...
> + .long 3b,bad_put_user
> + .long 4b,bad_put_user
The first 3 gets lost.
r~
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe li
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:20:06 PST, Linus Torvalds said:
> I'm not going to put this into 2.6.11, since I worry about compiler
> interactions, but the more people who test it anyway, the better.
Well, since I'm a known glutton for punishment. ;)
a 2.6.11-rc3-RT tree I had handy from last night sh
Hi!
> > boots fine and shrinks the image size quite noticeably:
> >
> > [Nr] Name TypeAddr OffSize
> > [ 1] .textPROGBITSc010 001000 2771a9 [vmlinux-orig]
> > [ 1] .textPROGBITSc010 001000 2742dd [vmlinux-patched]
> >
> > that's 11980 bytes o
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> boots fine and shrinks the image size quite noticeably:
>
> [Nr] Name TypeAddr OffSize
> [ 1] .textPROGBITSc010 001000 2771a9 [vmlinux-orig]
> [ 1] .textPROGBITSc010 001000 2742dd [vmlinux-patched]
>
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I no longer use x86 as my main machine, so this patch is totally
> untested. I've compiled it to see that things look somewhat sane, but
> that doesn't mean much. If I forgot some register or screwed something
> else up, this will result in a totally
I was looking at some of the code we generate, and happened to notice that
we have this strange situation where the x86 "get_user()" macros generate
out-of-line code to do all the address verification etc, but the
"put_user()" ones do not, and do everything inline.
I also noticed that (probabl
18 matches
Mail list logo
