Re: [PATCH 0/7] preempt_count rework -v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:51 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 02:43 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Actually, the right thing here really is "er" (which I think you meant,
> but just to make it clear.)

Yes, I was just answering the i-vs-e confusion.

> "e" doesn't work on versions of gcc older than the first x86-64 release,
> but we don't care about that anymore.

Indeed.

> A final good question is if we should encapsulate the add/inc and
> sub/dec into a single function; one could easily do somethin glike:

Yes. However, I would do that at a higher level than the one that
builds the actual functions.

That said, there's a few cases where you might want to specify
add-vs-sub explicitly, but they are rather odd, namely the fact that
"-128" fits in a byte, but "128" does not.

So it can be better to add 128 by doing a "subl $-128" than by doing
an "add $128".

But we probably don't have any situation where we care about that
special value of "128". I've seen the trick, though.

              Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/