Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2nd try: i386 rw_semaphores fix | Date | Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:43:48 +0100 | From | David Howells <> |
| |
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/
| |