From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753829AbcDFKiK (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 6 Apr 2016 06:38:10 -0400
Received: from lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk ([81.2.110.251]:55898 "EHLO
	lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750953AbcDFKiJ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 6 Apr 2016 06:38:09 -0400
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 11:37:37 +0100
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: zengzhaoxiu@163.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        dvlasenk@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dvyukov@google.com,
        keescook@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Zhaoxiu Zeng <zhaoxiu.zeng@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/30] Add x86-specific parity functions
Message-ID: <20160406113737.0b73bb40@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20160406101300.GA13719@pd.tnic>
References: <57031D9D.801@gmail.com>
	<1459934085-7152-1-git-send-email-zengzhaoxiu@163.com>
	<20160406101300.GA13719@pd.tnic>
Organization: Intel Corporation
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.29; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:13:00 +0200
Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:14:45PM +0800, zengzhaoxiu@163.com wrote:
> > From: Zhaoxiu Zeng <zhaoxiu.zeng@gmail.com>
> > 
> > Use alternatives, lifted from arch_hweight
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Zhaoxiu Zeng <zhaoxiu.zeng@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h |   5 ++
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/arch_parity.h  | 102 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h       |   4 +-
> >  arch/x86/lib/Makefile               |   8 +++
> >  arch/x86/lib/parity.c               |  32 ++++++++++++
> >  5 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >  create mode 100644 arch/x86/include/asm/arch_parity.h
> >  create mode 100644 arch/x86/lib/parity.c  
> 
> ...
> 
> > +static __always_inline unsigned int __arch_parity32(unsigned int w)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int res;
> > +
> > +	asm(ALTERNATIVE("call __sw_parity32", POPCNT32 "; and $1, %0", X86_FEATURE_POPCNT)
> > +		: "="REG_OUT (res)
> > +		: REG_IN (w)
> > +		: "cc");  
> 
> So why all that churn instead of simply doing:
> 
> static __always_inline unsigned int __arch_parity32(unsigned int w)
> {
> 	return hweight32(w) & 1;
> }
> 
> Ditto for the 64-bit version.

Even that would still be wrong for the smaller parity values. The CPU
supports 8bit parity directly going back to the 8086 so the
implementation for 8bit and I think 16bit is still wrong.

Alan