lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] preempt_count rework -v2
From
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:51 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 02:43 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Actually, the right thing here really is "er" (which I think you meant,
> but just to make it clear.)

Yes, I was just answering the i-vs-e confusion.

> "e" doesn't work on versions of gcc older than the first x86-64 release,
> but we don't care about that anymore.

Indeed.

> A final good question is if we should encapsulate the add/inc and
> sub/dec into a single function; one could easily do somethin glike:

Yes. However, I would do that at a higher level than the one that
builds the actual functions.

That said, there's a few cases where you might want to specify
add-vs-sub explicitly, but they are rather odd, namely the fact that
"-128" fits in a byte, but "128" does not.

So it can be better to add 128 by doing a "subl $-128" than by doing
an "add $128".

But we probably don't have any situation where we care about that
special value of "128". I've seen the trick, though.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-11 00:21    [W:0.331 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site