On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 06:42:29AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > Are you sure this is correct? Seems to me it should be: > > q = ((unsigned long long)q_hi << 32) | q_lo; > > I would have thought GCC would complain about a shift exceeding the > width of the type. > I probably fat fingered the braces. > A third thing is that you're doing this to the __raw_ variants which > don't have to be serialised. How about we keep the current definitions of > __raw_readX/__raw_writeX, define the regular readX/writeX to be the inline > assembler you've just posted, and add new defines of __readX/__writeX > as byteswapping versions of __raw_readX/__raw_writeX? > I was just going to define them all in terms of this... since, well, performance is mostly irrelevant. > [For those who aren't on linux-arch, there's just been a long thread > about the semantics of the different accessors and the above reflects my > understanding of that thread.] > > Should we add memory clobbers to gsc_readX/gsc_writeX? > Yeah, I think so (although, I really hope GCC won't reorder serializing instructions like rsm/ssm. ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
