From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933092AbYEGHuR (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 03:50:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758708AbYEGHty (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 03:49:54 -0400 Received: from vpn.id2.novell.com ([195.33.99.129]:14869 "EHLO vpn.id2.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758857AbYEGHtw convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 03:49:52 -0400 Message-Id: <48217B5F.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 7.0.3 Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 08:50:23 +0100 From: "Jan Beulich" To: "Thomas Gleixner" Cc: , "Ingo Molnar" , "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" , "Chuck Ebbert" , , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Please revert 709f744 (x86: bitops asm constraint fixes) References: <1209995129.5172.19.camel@odie.local> <20080506120155.GG32591@elte.hu> <482175EF.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>> Thomas Gleixner 07.05.08 09:43 >>> >On Wed, 7 May 2008, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> Ingo Molnar 06.05.08 14:01 >>> >> >Jan, any ideas what's wrong with your commit? >> >> No, I have no idea at all (apart from considering mis-compilation as you >> did. The best path I could suggest is to try and nail this down to one >> (or more, if that happens to be the case) function(s) having been >> changed - this is mostly because part of the changes are really >> tightening things (which therefore I would think ought to be kept), >> while the change to __test_and_change_bit() really weakens things >> (which I nevertheless continue to think is correct and consistent with >> other functions, but which then would be the primary suspect). Of >> course, since no-one else has seen this so far, this would need to be >> done by Simon. >> Once down to a single (hopefully) function, it might be possible to just >> statically compare the two vmlinux-es to perhaps spot whether this >> indeed is mis-compilation. > >Jan, > >can you please provide a step by step conversion of those constraints >on top of the revert. I'm a bit wary about this whole business as such >constraint problems might hit us elsewhere as well. I certainly can, but I can't promise when I'd get to do this (may be days to weeks - sorry for that). Jan