WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: fix variable_test_bit()asmconstraints

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: fix variable_test_bit()asmconstraints
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:37:50 +0000
Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:40:08 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <47DA9596.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AciF6Vwnmvzv2vHcEdyPnAAWy6hiGQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: fix variable_test_bit()asmconstraints
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618
On 14/3/08 14:11, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Regarding your other reply: I would actually be happy to change the bitops
>> to work with longs only. I suspect, and would need to have demonstrated
>> otherwise, that supporting bitops on arbitrary-width fields down to the
>> instruction level is not really worthwhile. Either way, I accept that what
>> we do now is dubious at best.
> 
> Hmm, change it to work with longs only but also make it work without
> casts? You mean then change all places where bitops are applied to
> exclusively use 'unsigned long' as the fundamental type? I didn't look
> at the number of places that would require changing, but I'm afraid it'd
> be quite a few (and it might get you further away from Linux originals
> in some cases).

Yes, I wouldn't have expected that too be too hard, really. Are there lots
of places with arrays of 32-bit integers? I doubt 16-bit or 8-bit fields are
at all common.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel