lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2nd try: i386 rw_semaphores fix
Date
From
I've been discussing it with some other kernel and GCC people, and they think
that only "memory" is required.

> What are the reasons against mentioning sem->count directly as a "=m"
> reference? This makes the whole thing less fragile and no more dependent
> on the memory layout of the structure.

Apart from the risk of breaking it, you mean? Well, "=m" seems to reserve an
extra register to hold a second copy of the semaphore address, probably since
it thinks EAX might get clobbered.

Also, as a minor point, it probably ought to be "+m" not "=m".

David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.047 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site