What is the state of the FIXED_486_STRING macro? It is used once thru
all the kernel tree - in include/asm-i386/string.h - and it seems that
its role is to disable a usage of string-486.h completely... Am I
right?
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:47:43 +0600,
Denis Zaitsev <[email protected]> wrote:
>What is the state of the FIXED_486_STRING macro? It is used once thru
>all the kernel tree - in include/asm-i386/string.h - and it seems that
>its role is to disable a usage of string-486.h completely... Am I
>right?
Dead code, it has been dead since at least 2.0.21. Unless somebody
wants to fix the string-486 code, delete FIXED_486_STRING,
CONFIG_X86_USE_STRING_486 and include/asm-i386/string-486.h.
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 10:27:18AM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> Dead code, it has been dead since at least 2.0.21. Unless somebody
> wants to fix the string-486 code, delete FIXED_486_STRING,
> CONFIG_X86_USE_STRING_486 and include/asm-i386/string-486.h.
I proposed doing this a few months back, then someone stepped forward
who had worked on these routines recently and fixed up whatever problems
they originally exhibited. Deleting the dead code from 2.2 / 2.4 probably
makes sense, but it'd be nice to have the 2.5 ones fixed up.
Dave.
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 02:44:06AM +0200, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 10:27:18AM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
>
> > Dead code, it has been dead since at least 2.0.21. Unless somebody
> > wants to fix the string-486 code, delete FIXED_486_STRING,
> > CONFIG_X86_USE_STRING_486 and include/asm-i386/string-486.h.
>
> I proposed doing this a few months back, then someone stepped forward
> who had worked on these routines recently and fixed up whatever problems
> they originally exhibited. Deleting the dead code from 2.2 / 2.4 probably
> makes sense, but it'd be nice to have the 2.5 ones fixed up.
>
> Dave.
>
Yes, the special code for Pentium is important for it, as that code is
faster and shorter. The last signature in string-486.h is of
2000/05/09, so, if this is true, the problems have not been fixed.
So, what is the real situation? I would like to fix the code, and it
seems that I'm not alone :)
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 06:38:26AM +0600, Denis Zaitsev wrote:
> Yes, the special code for Pentium is important for it, as that code is
> faster and shorter. The last signature in string-486.h is of
> 2000/05/09, so, if this is true, the problems have not been fixed.
> So, what is the real situation? I would like to fix the code, and it
> seems that I'm not alone :)
Petko Manolov <[email protected]> did some work on them circa 2.4.0test.
His patch is at http://www.dce.bg/~petkan/linux/string-486.diff
Aparently there are still 1-2 problems with these routines which is
why he hasn't pushed for inclusion I guess.
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 03:03:55AM +0200, Dave Jones wrote:
> Petko Manolov <[email protected]> did some work on them circa 2.4.0test.
> His patch is at http://www.dce.bg/~petkan/linux/string-486.diff
> Aparently there are still 1-2 problems with these routines which is
> why he hasn't pushed for inclusion I guess.
>
These patches are included... But the string-486.h itself is turned
off by FIXED_486_STRING. BTW, what are the problems?
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:25:56AM +0600, Denis Zaitsev wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 03:03:55AM +0200, Dave Jones wrote:
> > Petko Manolov <[email protected]> did some work on them circa 2.4.0test.
> > His patch is at http://www.dce.bg/~petkan/linux/string-486.diff
> These patches are included...
Look again.
(davej@noodles:linux-2.4.19-pre6)$ cat ../string-486.diff | patch -p1 -F1 --dry-run
patching file include/asm-i386/string-486.h
Hunk #13 FAILED at 365.
Hunk #14 succeeded at 388 (offset -5 lines).
Hunk #15 succeeded at 409 (offset -5 lines).
Hunk #16 succeeded at 452 (offset -5 lines).
Hunk #17 succeeded at 516 (offset -5 lines).
1 out of 17 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/asm-i386/string-486.h.rej
Almost still applies except for one hunk.
> But the string-486.h itself is turned
> off by FIXED_486_STRING. BTW, what are the problems?
Not sure off-hand. I would hazard a guess that they copied
too little/too much, but Petko would be a better person
to ask.
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 03:36:59AM +0200, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:25:56AM +0600, Denis Zaitsev wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 03:03:55AM +0200, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > Petko Manolov <[email protected]> did some work on them circa 2.4.0test.
> > > His patch is at http://www.dce.bg/~petkan/linux/string-486.diff
> > These patches are included...
>
> Look again.
>
> (davej@noodles:linux-2.4.19-pre6)$ cat ../string-486.diff | patch -p1 -F1 --dry-run
> patching file include/asm-i386/string-486.h
> Hunk #13 FAILED at 365.
> Hunk #14 succeeded at 388 (offset -5 lines).
> Hunk #15 succeeded at 409 (offset -5 lines).
> Hunk #16 succeeded at 452 (offset -5 lines).
> Hunk #17 succeeded at 516 (offset -5 lines).
> 1 out of 17 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/asm-i386/string-486.h.rej
>
> Almost still applies except for one hunk.
Yes, indeed. I've missed the fact that it is the latest patch. Thanks.
>
> > But the string-486.h itself is turned
> > off by FIXED_486_STRING. BTW, what are the problems?
>
> Not sure off-hand. I would hazard a guess that they copied
> too little/too much, but Petko would be a better person
> to ask.
>
I've already sent him a letter...