ky; Juergen Gross;
> > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> > h...@zytor.com
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] x86: modernize sync_bitops.h
> >
> > >>> On 21.11.18 at 14:49, wrote:
> > > From: Jan Beulich
> > >> Sent: 21 November 2018 13:03
> > &
ky; Juergen Gross;
> > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> > h...@zytor.com
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] x86: modernize sync_bitops.h
> >
> > >>> On 21.11.18 at 14:49, wrote:
> > > From: Jan Beulich
> > >> Sent: 21 November 2018 13:03
> > &
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: 21 November 2018 14:42
> To: David Laight
> Cc: mi...@elte.hu; t...@linutronix.de; Boris Ostrovsky; Juergen Gross;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> h...@zytor.com
> Subject: RE: [
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: 21 November 2018 14:42
> To: David Laight
> Cc: mi...@elte.hu; t...@linutronix.de; Boris Ostrovsky; Juergen Gross;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> h...@zytor.com
> Subject: RE: [
>>> On 21.11.18 at 14:49, wrote:
> From: Jan Beulich
>> Sent: 21 November 2018 13:03
>>
>> >>> On 21.11.18 at 12:55, wrote:
>> > From: Jan Beulich
>> >> Sent: 21 November 2018 10:11
>> >>
>> >> Add missing insn suffixes and use rmwcc.h just like was (more or less)
>> >> recently done for
>>> On 21.11.18 at 14:49, wrote:
> From: Jan Beulich
>> Sent: 21 November 2018 13:03
>>
>> >>> On 21.11.18 at 12:55, wrote:
>> > From: Jan Beulich
>> >> Sent: 21 November 2018 10:11
>> >>
>> >> Add missing insn suffixes and use rmwcc.h just like was (more or less)
>> >> recently done for
From: Jan Beulich
> Sent: 21 November 2018 13:03
>
> >>> On 21.11.18 at 12:55, wrote:
> > From: Jan Beulich
> >> Sent: 21 November 2018 10:11
> >>
> >> Add missing insn suffixes and use rmwcc.h just like was (more or less)
> >> recently done for bitops.h as well.
> >
> > Why? bts (etc) on memory
From: Jan Beulich
> Sent: 21 November 2018 13:03
>
> >>> On 21.11.18 at 12:55, wrote:
> > From: Jan Beulich
> >> Sent: 21 November 2018 10:11
> >>
> >> Add missing insn suffixes and use rmwcc.h just like was (more or less)
> >> recently done for bitops.h as well.
> >
> > Why? bts (etc) on memory
>>> On 21.11.18 at 12:55, wrote:
> From: Jan Beulich
>> Sent: 21 November 2018 10:11
>>
>> Add missing insn suffixes and use rmwcc.h just like was (more or less)
>> recently done for bitops.h as well.
>
> Why? bts (etc) on memory don't really have an 'operand size'.
Of course they do -
>>> On 21.11.18 at 12:55, wrote:
> From: Jan Beulich
>> Sent: 21 November 2018 10:11
>>
>> Add missing insn suffixes and use rmwcc.h just like was (more or less)
>> recently done for bitops.h as well.
>
> Why? bts (etc) on memory don't really have an 'operand size'.
Of course they do -
From: Jan Beulich
> Sent: 21 November 2018 10:11
>
> Add missing insn suffixes and use rmwcc.h just like was (more or less)
> recently done for bitops.h as well.
Why? bts (etc) on memory don't really have an 'operand size'.
IIRC the suffix determines the width of the %cx register that selects
From: Jan Beulich
> Sent: 21 November 2018 10:11
>
> Add missing insn suffixes and use rmwcc.h just like was (more or less)
> recently done for bitops.h as well.
Why? bts (etc) on memory don't really have an 'operand size'.
IIRC the suffix determines the width of the %cx register that selects
12 matches
Mail list logo
