Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> writes:
>
> static inline void
> -htm_abort ()
> +htm_abort_retry ()
> {
> // ??? According to a yet unpublished ABI rule, 0xff is reserved and
> // supposed to signal a busy lock. Source: andi.kl...@intel.com
> _xabort(0xff);
> }
>
> +static inline void
> +htm_abort_cancel ()
> +{
> + // ??? What's the unpublished ABI rule for this, Andi?
There is none for cancel, just for lock-is-locked (0xfe) and lock-busy (0xff)
The convention is just for easier abort profiling. The profiler (perf) can
display
this abort code and it's far easier to understand if common situations
have their standard code. But you can always make up your own too.
-Andi
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
