| Message ID | 20120413.152455.900761231064979707.davem@davemloft.net |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > > With special guest sparc64 assembler hacker, Paul E. McKenney. Oh christ. You're teaching *more* people about sparc64? Where will it end? That said, Looking at the patch, it looks a bit dubious. Why does the cmp %l1, 0 instruction remain, even if the conditional branch was deleted? I'm not seeing any subsequent uses of %icc, but hey, I'm no sparc expert (nor do I want to be). Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:46:34 -0700 > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: >> >> With special guest sparc64 assembler hacker, Paul E. McKenney. > > Oh christ. You're teaching *more* people about sparc64? > > Where will it end? :-) > That said, Looking at the patch, it looks a bit dubious. Why does the > > cmp %l1, 0 > > instruction remain, even if the conditional branch was deleted? I'm > not seeing any subsequent uses of %icc, but hey, I'm no sparc expert > (nor do I want to be). It's unnecessary but harmless, I'll sweep it up in the sparc-next tree when I get a chace. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:46:34PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > > > > With special guest sparc64 assembler hacker, Paul E. McKenney. > > Oh christ. You're teaching *more* people about sparc64? You do not get it... How many people are pondering around tweaking every bit of x86 specific code? A lot! Let them have fun competing :-) In sparc land things are much more quiet. And there are some nice tasks to be done that is good for the kernel, as users of old cruft is sometimes hindering forward progress. And when one is away for a few months things has not dramatically changed since last you looked. Sam -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:46:34PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > > > > > > With special guest sparc64 assembler hacker, Paul E. McKenney. > > > > Oh christ. You're teaching *more* people about sparc64? > You do not get it... > > How many people are pondering around tweaking every bit of x86 > specific code? A lot! Let them have fun competing :-) I wish it was so! In reality there's really just a handful of people looking at actual x86 assembly code. I don't know whether I've ever seen a conflict between substantial x86 assembly patches, in the last 4 years since I co-maintain the x86 architecture ... So there's no competition worth speaking of in x86 assembly land, let alone any harmful competition due to overcrowding. You guys are all welcome, and each of you will make a real difference. Imagine what would happen to Linux adoption rate if DaveM started hacking on assembly code that had more than a few dozen active users?? ;-) > In sparc land things are much more quiet. I guess when you are close to absolute zero degrees then even liquid oxygen indeed looks incredibly hot ;-) Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:13:52AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:46:34PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > With special guest sparc64 assembler hacker, Paul E. McKenney. > > > > > > Oh christ. You're teaching *more* people about sparc64? > > You do not get it... > > > > How many people are pondering around tweaking every bit of x86 > > specific code? A lot! Let them have fun competing :-) > > I wish it was so! In reality there's really just a handful of > people looking at actual x86 assembly code. I don't know whether > I've ever seen a conflict between substantial x86 assembly > patches, in the last 4 years since I co-maintain the x86 > architecture ... Hmm... lines of c files lines of S files x86 183609 27130 sparc 66823 25852 There is more than just assembly when dealign with an architecture. And honestly I do not "speak" neither sparc nor x86 assembly. Sam -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:13:52AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:46:34PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > With special guest sparc64 assembler hacker, Paul E. McKenney. > > > > > > > > Oh christ. You're teaching *more* people about sparc64? > > > You do not get it... > > > > > > How many people are pondering around tweaking every bit of x86 > > > specific code? A lot! Let them have fun competing :-) > > > > I wish it was so! In reality there's really just a handful of > > people looking at actual x86 assembly code. I don't know whether > > I've ever seen a conflict between substantial x86 assembly > > patches, in the last 4 years since I co-maintain the x86 > > architecture ... > > Hmm... > > lines of c files lines of S files > x86 183609 27130 > sparc 66823 25852 Yes. ( I have no idea what the 'Hmm...' means - do those numbers somehow contradict what I said? ) > There is more than just assembly when dealign with an architecture. Definitely. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please pull to get these two sparc bug fixes. With special guest sparc64 assembler hacker, Paul E. McKenney. Thanks. The following changes since commit 4166fb64593514ad920b7dbd290e0a934b37d24a: Merge tag 'srpt-srq-type' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/roland/infiniband (2012-04-12 18:51:32 -0700) are available in the git repository at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/sparc.git master for you to fetch changes up to 3d3eeb2ef26112a200785e5fca58ec58dd33bf1e: sparc64: Eliminate obsolete __handle_softirq() function (2012-04-13 11:58:38 -0700) ---------------------------------------------------------------- David S. Miller (1): sparc64: Fix bootup crash on sun4v. Paul E. McKenney (1): sparc64: Eliminate obsolete __handle_softirq() function arch/sparc/kernel/ds.c | 2 +- arch/sparc/kernel/rtrap_64.S | 7 ------- 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html