On 11/15/2010 07:08 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Jim Bos <jim876@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, that doesn't work.
>>
>> [ Not sure if you read to whole thread but initial workaround was to
>> change the asm(..) to asm volatile(..) which did work. ]
> 
> Since I have a different gcc than yours (and I'm not going to compile
> my own), have you posted your broken .s file anywhere? In fact, with
> the noinline (and the removal of the "+m" thing - iow just the patch
> you tried), what does just the "i8k_smm" function assembly look like
> for you after you've done a "make drivers/char/i8k.s"?
> 
> If the asm just doesn't exist AT ALL, that's just odd. Because every
> single call-site of i8k_smm() clearly looks at the return value. So
> the volatile really shouldn't make any difference from that
> standpoint. Odd.
> 
>                        Linus
> 

Attached version with plain 2.6.36 source and version with the committed
patch, i.e with the '"+m" (*regs)'


_
Jim