>>> On 11.02.15 at 16:14, wrote:
> On 11/02/15 13:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -55,12 +54,9 @@ static inline void set_bit(int nr, volat
>> * If it's called on the same region of memory simultaneously, the effect
>> * may be that only one operation succeeds.
>> */
>> -static inline void __set
On 11/02/15 13:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
> - being non-atomic, their pointer arguments shouldn't be volatile-
> qualified
> - their (half fake) memory operands can be a single "+m" instead of
> being both an output and an input
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
> ---
> v2: Drop "+m" related sentence
- being non-atomic, their pointer arguments shouldn't be volatile-
qualified
- their (half fake) memory operands can be a single "+m" instead of
being both an output and an input
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
---
v2: Drop "+m" related sentence from comment at the top of the file as
being wro
>>> On 19.01.15 at 18:21, wrote:
> On 19/01/15 15:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> - being non-atomic, their pointer arguments shouldn't be volatile-
>> qualified
>> - their (half fake) memory operands can be a single "+m" instead of
>> being both an output and an input
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beuli
On 19/01/15 15:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
> - being non-atomic, their pointer arguments shouldn't be volatile-
> qualified
> - their (half fake) memory operands can be a single "+m" instead of
> being both an output and an input
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
There is a note at the top of the fil
- being non-atomic, their pointer arguments shouldn't be volatile-
qualified
- their (half fake) memory operands can be a single "+m" instead of
being both an output and an input
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/bitops.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/bitops.h
@@ -53,12 +53,9
