On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2011/8/9 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>>> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>>> > index eb5a8f9..5695f92 100644
>>> > --- a/mm/slub.c
>>> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
>>> > @@ -701,7 +701,7 @@ static u8 *check_bytes(u8 *start, u8 value, unsigned int bytes)
>>> > return check_bytes8(start, value, bytes);
>>> >
>>> > value64 = value | value << 8 | value << 16 | value << 24;
>>> > - value64 = value64 | value64 << 32;
>>> > + value64 = (value64 & 0xffffffff) | value64 << 32;
>>> > prefix = 8 - ((unsigned long)start) % 8;
>>> >
>>> > if (prefix) {
>>>
>>> Still buggy I am afraid. Could we use the following ?
>>>
>>>
>>> value64 = value;
>>> value64 |= value64 << 8;
>>> value64 |= value64 << 16;
>>> value64 |= value64 << 32;
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, 'buggy' was not well chosen.
>>
>> Another possibility would be to use a multiply if arch has a fast
>> multiplier...
>>
>>
>> value64 = value;
>> #if defined(ARCH_HAS_FAST_MULTIPLIER) && BITS_PER_LONG == 64
>> value64 *= 0x0101010101010101;
>> #elif defined(ARCH_HAS_FAST_MULTIPLIER)
>> value64 *= 0x01010101;
>> value64 |= value64 << 32;
>> #else
>> value64 |= value64 << 8;
>> value64 |= value64 << 16;
>> value64 |= value64 << 32;
>> #endif
>
> I don't really care about which one should be used. So tell me if I need
> to resend it with this improvement.
I'm confused. What was wrong with your original patch?
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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