From patchwork Mon Jun 30 13:11:51 2014 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Ian Campbell X-Patchwork-Id: 32725 Return-Path: X-Original-To: linaro@patches.linaro.org Delivered-To: linaro@patches.linaro.org Received: from mail-ob0-f199.google.com (mail-ob0-f199.google.com [209.85.214.199]) by ip-10-151-82-157.ec2.internal (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C0D3203F4 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:16:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f199.google.com with SMTP id va2sf51092036obc.2 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:16:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:delivered-to:message-id:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:cc:subject:precedence:list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-post:list-help:list-subscribe:sender :errors-to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :mailing-list:list-archive:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wrW63sUUuXJ8ofLhVBbG0DLh2DTVf+zQyELSUb6/onM=; b=gXyUsqUqwi1UoweYPcPJyzLq4Pkb6KAOjgKE+8m0EzAzQQkg0l0OGMyfN1v94Upehe d5g1nUpIdcouV4/N8T7VUA+9jMrik/4L6I99VLFfaA/hnN2Qv/Kh0ZOK0Ub5PpuizOHw jaiEqA2CjsOKvfv5ouT4wotDol/1YsPe/pfX4WSgJa65fpA39xiULibH0wCaeoWgDN0D sD4Vmimr3BKOvOKHs5AuMCjIUmqgI2DkpchIZBvoTEkyHqBM7rEFYaVhJb79x4cfeDAn 5rNatY1TSCDaNd/xJOgCDXR3uhkxxrqJsiEiBnck86ko564uJqbdxfRezYHm0416yMk1 yl/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkA5jQw7M0fVljyi6JxHKf42qPnJEL5UhmJXmLOC8qkliWPtd1w+7rjMy/FcwRovadqh/CP X-Received: by 10.42.94.8 with SMTP id z8mr20366650icm.3.1404134162600; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:16:02 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: patchwork-forward@linaro.org Received: by 10.140.30.36 with SMTP id c33ls1486777qgc.72.gmail; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:16:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.52.117.209 with SMTP id kg17mr30826301vdb.28.1404134162460; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:16:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-f180.google.com (mail-ve0-f180.google.com [209.85.128.180]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id xy3si10013394vec.77.2014.06.30.06.16.02 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:16:02 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of patch+caf_=patchwork-forward=linaro.org@linaro.org designates 209.85.128.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.128.180; Received: by mail-ve0-f180.google.com with SMTP id jw12so8080848veb.39 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:16:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.52.23.71 with SMTP id k7mr31945248vdf.27.1404134162311; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:16:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-To: patchwork-forward@linaro.org X-Forwarded-For: patch@linaro.org patchwork-forward@linaro.org Delivered-To: patch@linaro.org Received: by 10.221.37.5 with SMTP id tc5csp138018vcb; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:16:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.104.161 with SMTP id a30mr2579161qgf.19.1404134161909; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.xen.org (lists.xen.org. [50.57.142.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ce2si25001814qcb.7.2014.06.30.06.16.01 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: none (google.com: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=50.57.142.19; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xen.org) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1X1bPP-0006Cw-Vx; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:14:11 +0000 Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1X1bPP-0006Ch-5x for xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:14:11 +0000 Received: from [193.109.254.147:9194] by server-8.bemta-14.messagelabs.com id 2D/33-01877-2A261B35; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:14:10 +0000 X-Env-Sender: Ian.Campbell@citrix.com X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-27.messagelabs.com!1404134048!14554366!1 X-Originating-IP: [66.165.176.63] X-SpamReason: No, hits=0.0 required=7.0 tests=sa_preprocessor: VHJ1c3RlZCBJUDogNjYuMTY1LjE3Ni42MyA9PiAzMDYwNDg=\n X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 6.11.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 12928 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2014 13:14:09 -0000 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com (HELO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM) (66.165.176.63) by server-14.tower-27.messagelabs.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Jun 2014 13:14:09 -0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,575,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="148575752" Received: from accessns.citrite.net (HELO FTLPEX01CL02.citrite.net) ([10.9.154.239]) by FTLPIPO02.CITRIX.COM with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2014 13:12:43 +0000 Received: from kazak.uk.xensource.com (10.80.2.80) by FTLPEX01CL02.citrite.net (10.13.107.79) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:11:52 -0400 Message-ID: <1404133911.14488.59.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> From: Ian Campbell To: Paolo Bonzini Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:11:51 +0100 In-Reply-To: <53B16125.9010306@redhat.com> References: <1404133433.14488.52.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <53B16125.9010306@redhat.com> Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc. X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.2-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.80.2.80] X-DLP: MIA1 Cc: Kevin O'Connor , seabios@seabios.org, xen-devel Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] expecting string instruction after `rep' with latest SeaBIOS X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xen.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org X-Removed-Original-Auth: Dkim didn't pass. X-Original-Sender: ian.campbell@citrix.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of patch+caf_=patchwork-forward=linaro.org@linaro.org designates 209.85.128.180 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=patch+caf_=patchwork-forward=linaro.org@linaro.org Mailing-list: list patchwork-forward@linaro.org; contact patchwork-forward+owners@linaro.org X-Google-Group-Id: 836684582541 List-Archive: On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 15:07 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 30/06/2014 15:03, Ian Campbell ha scritto: > > That line is: > > // Acquire lock and take ownership of shared stack > > 1: rep nop > > > > I've also checked the preprocessed version and the nop isn't being > > disappeared or anything like that. > > "rep nop" is really just "pause". Yes, that's how I was translating it in my head, which is why I thought it was fine to write it like that. > I think the assembler wants "rep; nop" instead. That's right, I was just reaching the same conclusion. Build-tested patch: 8<------------------------ >From 0b05042b582a8992c15030406dcb220be82da8ce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ian Campbell Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:10:02 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] romlayout: Use "rep ; nop" not "rep nop". Fixes: Compiling (16bit) out/romlayout.o src/romlayout.S: Assembler messages: src/romlayout.S:285: Error: expecting string instruction after `rep' make: *** [out/romlayout.o] Error 1 Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini --- src/romlayout.S | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/romlayout.S b/src/romlayout.S index a931b32..a3ba965 100644 --- a/src/romlayout.S +++ b/src/romlayout.S @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ entry_smp: jmp transition32 .code32 // Acquire lock and take ownership of shared stack -1: rep nop +1: rep ; nop 2: lock btsl $0, SMPLock jc 1b movl SMPStack, %esp