On 05/31/2011 08:13 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>>> +#define cmpxchg16b(ptr, o1, o2, n1, n2) \
>>> +({ \
>>> + char __ret; \
>>> + __typeof__(o2) __junk; \
>>> + __typeof__(*(ptr)) __old1 = (o1); \
>>> + __typeof__(o2) __old2 = (o2); \
>>> + __typeof__(*(ptr)) __new1 = (n1); \
>>> + __typeof__(o2) __new2 = (n2); \
>>> + asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX_HERE "lock; cmpxchg16b (%%rsi);setz %1" \
>>
>> If there is no emulation, why do you force rsi here ?
>>
>> It could be something else, like "=m" (*ptr) ?
>>
>> (same remark for other functions)
>
> Well I ran into trouble with =m. Maybe +m will do. Will try again.
>
Yes, =m would be very wrong indeed.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>