lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm] i386 syscall opcode reordering (pipelining)
Date
Followup to:  <e6nd68$4sq$1@terminus.zytor.com>
By author: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Probably not. The _syscallN() macros are broken for the general case
> on any 32-bit architecture, since they can't handle multiregister
> arguments.
>
> Similarly, a general syscall() function is broken (in the sense that
> one would have to have syscall-specific code to mangle the arguments)
> on *some*, but not all, 32-bit architectures, since some architectures
> have alignment constraints on multiregister arguments, and the syscall
> number argument throws off that alignment.
>

I should probably add that it is possible to write _syscallN() macros
that handle multiregister arguments correctly; just the current ones
aren't done correctly. The complexity gets pretty staggering for the
higher argument counts, though, as for each _syscallN() you have to
support 2^N possible cases, just to deal with 32- and 64-bit arguments
(which is all we support at this point, so it'd be okay.)

-hpa
-
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: 2006-06-14 00:23    [W:0.064 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site