From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758201AbYC0Ilv (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:41:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754633AbYC0Ilo (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:41:44 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:35520 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751360AbYC0Iln (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:41:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:30 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jan Beulich Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes Message-ID: <20080327084130.GG15626@elte.hu> References: <47EB56E0020000780004917E@public.id2-vpn.continvity.gns.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47EB56E0020000780004917E@public.id2-vpn.continvity.gns.novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jan Beulich wrote: > Please revert it for the time being, I've got a better version (i.e. > without extra dead code being generated) that I intended to submit > once I know whether the other issues pointed out in the description on > the original patch also should be adjusted. Of course, that could also > be done incrementally, but I would think overhauling the whole file at > once wouldn't be a bad thing... since it appears to cause no problems in x86.git (it passed a lot of testing already) i'd prefer to keep it (so that we can see any other side-effects of touching this code) - could you send your improvements as a delta against x86.git/latest? [or is there any outright bug caused by your changes that necessiates a revert?] Ingo