[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH, RFC] Re: x86: gnttab_clear_flag() abusing clear_bit()

On 09/02/2012 01:01, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Looks fine to me, in principle. I would add a comment to the x86
>> gnttab_clear_flag() explaining why we have to open code something that looks
>> a lot like clear_bit().
> That one I already did, will submit soon (desiring clarification on the
> below).
> As to the "+m" constraint - I'm being told that "+m" (var) is equivalent
> to "=m" (var) : "m" (var), no matter what the documentation says
> regarding '+' (but they're also not seeing a need to adjust the docs
> accordingly).
> The question is whether we should go with the (documentation-wise
> correct) form, or the shorter one (which they're unlikely to change
> the meaning of, given in how many places "+m" is used in e.g. Linux).

You could switch us to "+m" and see how we get on.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.