On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Mark Kettenis wrote:
On Tuesday 21 August 2012, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On x86, the xchg operation between reg and mem has an implicit lock
prefix, i.e. it is a relatively expensive atomic operation. This is
not needed here.
OKs, anyone?
What you say makes sense, although
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:10:53 +0100 (CET)
From: Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Mark Kettenis wrote:
On Tuesday 21 August 2012, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On x86, the xchg operation between reg and mem has an implicit lock
prefix, i.e. it is a relatively expensive
From: Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 22:43:33 +0100
On Tuesday 21 August 2012, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On x86, the xchg operation between reg and mem has an implicit lock
prefix, i.e. it is a relatively expensive atomic operation. This is
not needed here.
OKs,
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 22:43, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 21 August 2012, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On x86, the xchg operation between reg and mem has an implicit lock
prefix, i.e. it is a relatively expensive atomic operation. This is
not needed here.
OKs, anyone?
What do other
On Tuesday 21 August 2012, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On x86, the xchg operation between reg and mem has an implicit lock
prefix, i.e. it is a relatively expensive atomic operation. This is
not needed here.
OKs, anyone?
--- a/sys/arch/i386/i386/locore.s
+++ b/sys/arch/i386/i386/locore.s
@@
On x86, the xchg operation between reg and mem has an implicit lock
prefix, i.e. it is a relatively expensive atomic operation. This is not
needed here.
--- a/sys/arch/i386/i386/locore.s
+++ b/sys/arch/i386/i386/locore.s
@@ -802,8 +802,9 @@ ENTRY(bcopy)
*/
ENTRY(memcpy)
movl
