[patch 0/6] x86: apicdef.h unification - Kernel

This is a discussion on [patch 0/6] x86: apicdef.h unification - Kernel ; The following patch series unifies apicdef*h header files for the x86 architure. For a better review there are many small patches. -- Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Operating System Research Center email: robert.richter@amd.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: [patch 0/6] x86: apicdef.h unification

  1. [patch 0/6] x86: apicdef.h unification

    The following patch series unifies apicdef*h header files for the x86
    architure. For a better review there are many small patches.


    --
    Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
    Operating System Research Center
    email: robert.richter@amd.com



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

  2. [patch 2/6] x86: apicdef unification: minor changes in macro order


    Signed-off-by: Robert Richter
    ---
    include/asm-x86/apicdef_64.h | 3 +--
    1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

    Index: linux-perfmon/include/asm-x86/apicdef_64.h
    ================================================== =================
    --- linux-perfmon.orig/include/asm-x86/apicdef_64.h
    +++ linux-perfmon/include/asm-x86/apicdef_64.h
    @@ -116,6 +116,7 @@

    #define MAX_IO_APICS 128
    #define MAX_LOCAL_APIC 256
    +#define BAD_APICID 0xFFu

    /*
    * All x86-64 systems are xAPIC compatible.
    @@ -387,6 +388,4 @@ struct local_apic {

    #undef u32

    -#define BAD_APICID 0xFFu
    -
    #endif

    --
    Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
    Operating System Research Center
    email: robert.richter@amd.com



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

  3. Re: [patch 0/6] x86: apicdef.h unification

    Robert,

    On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Robert Richter wrote:

    > The following patch series unifies apicdef*h header files for the x86
    > architure. For a better review there are many small patches.



    Thanks for doing this, but please check the x86 git repository
    (cleanup / mm branch) for stuff which has been worked on already.

    Maybe we need some coordination for this.

    Thanks,

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

  4. Re: [patch 1/6] x86: apicdef unification: some constants made unsigned

    Robert Richter wrote:
    > -#define GET_APIC_VERSION(x) ((x)&0xFF)
    > -#define GET_APIC_MAXLVT(x) (((x)>>16)&0xFF)
    > -#define APIC_INTEGRATED(x) ((x)&0xF0)
    > +#define GET_APIC_VERSION(x) ((x)&0xFFu)
    > +#define GET_APIC_MAXLVT(x) (((x)>>16)&0xFFu)
    > +#define APIC_INTEGRATED(x) ((x)&0xF0u)


    Can these ever be used in .S files? Might be better to use the _AC stuff.

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

  5. Re: [patch 1/6] x86: apicdef unification: some constants made unsigned

    On 07.11.07 12:41:09, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
    > > -#define GET_APIC_VERSION(x) ((x)&0xFF)
    > > -#define GET_APIC_MAXLVT(x) (((x)>>16)&0xFF)
    > > -#define APIC_INTEGRATED(x) ((x)&0xF0)
    > > +#define GET_APIC_VERSION(x) ((x)&0xFFu)
    > > +#define GET_APIC_MAXLVT(x) (((x)>>16)&0xFFu)
    > > +#define APIC_INTEGRATED(x) ((x)&0xF0u)

    >
    > Can these ever be used in .S files? Might be better to use the _AC stuff.


    I did not want to make functional changes, just do a simple
    merge. However there are already updated files in the x86/cleanup
    tree, so these patches are obsolete.

    -Robert

    --
    Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
    Operating System Research Center
    email: robert.richter@amd.com


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

  6. Re: [patch 0/6] x86: apicdef.h unification

    Thomas,

    On 06.11.07 21:32:12, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > Thanks for doing this, but please check the x86 git repository
    > (cleanup / mm branch) for stuff which has been worked on already.
    >
    > Maybe we need some coordination for this.


    Is it for sure that the x86/cleanup tree will go upstream soon and the
    source will not change as much? The question is what code base to use
    for new patches? I want to keep the porting effort as small as
    possible.

    -Robert

    --
    Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
    Operating System Research Center
    email: robert.richter@amd.com


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

  7. Re: [patch 0/6] x86: apicdef.h unification



    On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Robert Richter wrote:

    > Thomas,
    >
    > On 06.11.07 21:32:12, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > > Thanks for doing this, but please check the x86 git repository
    > > (cleanup / mm branch) for stuff which has been worked on already.
    > >
    > > Maybe we need some coordination for this.

    >
    > Is it for sure that the x86/cleanup tree will go upstream soon and the
    > source will not change as much? The question is what code base to use
    > for new patches? I want to keep the porting effort as small as
    > possible.


    We'll add patches on top of the cleanup branch. There should be not much
    changes, except if we have real functional changes.

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

  8. Re: [patch 1/6] x86: apicdef unification: some constants made unsigned

    On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Robert Richter wrote:

    > -#define GET_APIC_VERSION(x) ((x)&0xFF)
    > -#define GET_APIC_MAXLVT(x) (((x)>>16)&0xFF)
    > -#define APIC_INTEGRATED(x) ((x)&0xF0)
    > +#define GET_APIC_VERSION(x) ((x)&0xFFu)
    > +#define GET_APIC_MAXLVT(x) (((x)>>16)&0xFFu)
    > +#define APIC_INTEGRATED(x) ((x)&0xF0u)


    No point in doing this -- hexadecimal literals are unsigned by
    definition. File a compiler bug if you see them interpreted otherwise.

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

  9. Re: [patch 1/6] x86: apicdef unification: some constants made unsigned

    On 12.11.07 12:31:44, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
    > > -#define GET_APIC_VERSION(x) ((x)&0xFF)
    > > -#define GET_APIC_MAXLVT(x) (((x)>>16)&0xFF)
    > > -#define APIC_INTEGRATED(x) ((x)&0xF0)
    > > +#define GET_APIC_VERSION(x) ((x)&0xFFu)
    > > +#define GET_APIC_MAXLVT(x) (((x)>>16)&0xFFu)
    > > +#define APIC_INTEGRATED(x) ((x)&0xF0u)

    >
    > No point in doing this -- hexadecimal literals are unsigned by
    > definition. File a compiler bug if you see them interpreted otherwise.


    My understanding from the c90/c99 standards is that hexadecimal
    constants may result in signed or unsigned types. Contrarily, decimal
    constants always result in integer types, if no signed suffix is
    given.

    However, I made this change only to unify 32 and 64 bit implementation
    and took already existing code from the 64 bit version.

    -Robert

    --
    Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
    Operating System Research Center
    email: robert.richter@amd.com


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

  10. Re: [patch 1/6] x86: apicdef unification: some constants made unsigned

    Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
    > On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Robert Richter wrote:
    >
    >> -#define GET_APIC_VERSION(x) ((x)&0xFF)
    >> -#define GET_APIC_MAXLVT(x) (((x)>>16)&0xFF)
    >> -#define APIC_INTEGRATED(x) ((x)&0xF0)
    >> +#define GET_APIC_VERSION(x) ((x)&0xFFu)
    >> +#define GET_APIC_MAXLVT(x) (((x)>>16)&0xFFu)
    >> +#define APIC_INTEGRATED(x) ((x)&0xF0u)

    >
    > No point in doing this -- hexadecimal literals are unsigned by
    > definition. File a compiler bug if you see them interpreted otherwise.
    >


    Not unless they have to be (see C99 if you don't believe me... on a
    I32LP64 system for example, 0x7fffffff is signed int, 0x80000000 is
    unsigned int, 0x100000000 is signed long).

    What is this supposed to solve in the first place?

    -hpa

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

+ Reply to Thread