Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86: Add support for the clwb instruction

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:40:00PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:

Yep, it's weird, I know. :)

But sure, saving opcode space, makes sense to me.

Btw, I'd still be interested about this:

+static inline void clwb(volatile void *__p) +{

• alternative_io_2(".byte " __stringify(NOP_DS_PREFIX) "; clflush %P0",
  

Any particular reason for using 0x3e as a prefix to have the insns be the same size or is it simply because CLFLUSH can stomach it?

Thanks.