We also carry the unaligned version with us. Only x86_64 uses
it, but there's no problem in defining it.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Move both versions, which are highly similar, to uaccess.h.
Note that, for x86_64, X86_WP_WORKS_OK is always defined.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

We also check user pointer in x86_64 put_user, the way i386 does.

In a separate patch for bisecting purposes.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

For both __put_user_x and __put_user_8 macros, pass the error
variable explicitly.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Move __get_user_asm and __get_user_size and __get_user_nocheck
to uaccess.h. This requires us to define a macro at __get_user_size
for the 64-bit access case.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Let the user of the macro specify the desired return.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Move both __put_user_asm and __put_user_size to
uaccess.h. i386 already had a special function for 64-bit access,
so for x86_64, we just define a macro with the same name.
Note that for X86_64, CONFIG_X86_WP_WORKS_OK will always
be defined, so the #else part will never be even compiled in.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Let the user of the macro specify the desired return.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Select X86_WP_WORKS_OK for x86_64 too.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Do it in a separate patch for bisectability.
Goal is to have put_user_size integrated.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Take it out of uaccess_32.h. Since it seems that no users
of the x86_64 exists, we simply pick the i386 version.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Merge versions of getuser from uaccess_32.h and uaccess_64.h into
uaccess.h. There is a part which is 64-bit only (for now), and for
that, we use a __get_user_8 macro.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Common parts of uaccess_32.h and uaccess_64.h
are put in uaccess.h. Bits in uaccess_32.h and
uaccess_64.h that come to this file are equal
except for comments and whitespaces differences.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Using explicit hexa (0xFFFFFFUL) introduces an unnecessary difference
between i386 and x86_64 because of the size of their long. Use -1UL instead.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Do not refer to the processor word-size with int, as it won't
work with x86_64. Use long instead.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Put the likely hint in access_ok. Just for
bisectability.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Our integration efforts broke a build with this function being used
with i386. Reason is "g" can put the operand in an imm32, which according
to The Book (tm), is invalid as the second operand.

This is actually a bug
in x86_64 too, since the x86_64 instruction set reference does not list
it as valid.

We probably didn't trigger this before due to the ammount of
registers available for 64-bit platforms. But that's just my guess.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

For i386, __range_not_ok is a better name than __range_ok, since
it returns 0 when it is in fact okay. Other than that,
both versions does not need the word size specifiers, and we remove them.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

putuser_32.S and putuser_64.S are merged into putuser.S.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

In putuser_32.S and putuser_64.S, replace things like .quad, .long,
and explicit references to [r|e]ax for the apropriate macros
in asm/asm.h.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Remove them where unambiguous.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

In putuser_64.S, do it the i386 way, and replace the code
in beginning and end of functions with macros, since it's
always the same thing. Save lines.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Instead of operating over a register we need to put back
into normal state afterwards (the memory position), just
sub from rbx, which is trashed anyway. We can save a few instructions.

Also, this is the i386 way.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

This is consistent with i386 usage.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Instead of clobbering r8, clobber rbx, which is the i386 way.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Follow the pattern, and define a single put_user_x, instead
of defining macros for all available sizes. Exception is
put_user_8, since the "A" constraint does not give us enough
power to specify which register (a or d) to use in the 32-bit
common case.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Clobber it in the inline asm macros, and let the compiler do this for us.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

getuser_32.S and getuser_64.S are merged into getuser.S.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Switch .long and .quad with _ASM_PTR in getuser*.S.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

There are situations in which the architecture wants to use the
register that represents its word-size, whatever it is. For those,
introduce __ASM_REG in asm.h, along with the first users _ASM_AX
and _ASM_DX. They have users waiting for it, namely the getuser
functions.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

The instructions access registers, so the size is unambiguous.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

This is for consistency with i386.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Instead of doing a sub after the addition, use the
offset directly at the memory operand of the mov instructions.
This is the way i386 do.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Since the instructions refer to registers, they'll be able
to figure it out.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

There's really no reason to clobber r8 or pass the address in rcx.
We can safely use only two registers (which we already have to touch anyway)
to do the job.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

fix:

arch/x86/lib/delay.c:93:24: error: macro "use_tsc_delay" passed 1 arguments, but takes just 0
arch/x86/lib/delay.c:94: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’ before ‘{’ token
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

delay_32.c, delay_64.c are now equal, and are integrated into delay.c.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

For x86_64, we can't just use %0, as it would
generate a mul against rdx, which is not really what we
want (note the ">> 32" in x86_64 version).

Using a u64 variable with a shift in i386 generates bad code,
so the solution is to explicitly use %%edx in inline assembly
for both.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

This way we achieve the same code for both arches.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

This is for consistency with i386. We call use_tsc_delay()
at tsc initialization for x86_64, so we'll be always using it.
Signed-off-by: NGlauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>