On 07/22/15 01:11, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 00:46 -0400, David Long wrote:
On 06/29/15 23:29, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 14:30 -0400, David Long wrote:
On 06/16/15 09:17, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:42 AM, David Long <dave.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
#define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) \
{.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, ARM_##r)}
#define REG_OFFSET_END {.name = NULL, .offset = 0}
Can't you also move these? ARM is complicated with the "ARM_"
prefixing, but the others appear to be the same. Maybe you can remove
the prefix or redefine the macro for ARM.
That would mandate that all the architecture-specific pt_regs structures
would have to use a top-level named field for each named register.
Why does it mandate that?
See eg. powerpc where we use REG_OFFSET_NAME for the top-level named fields and
then a different macro for the array elements:
#define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs,
r)}
#define GPR_OFFSET_NAME(num) \
{.name = STR(gpr##num), .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, gpr[num])}
static const struct pt_regs_offset regoffset_table[] = {
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(0),
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(1),
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(2),
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(3),
...
REG_OFFSET_NAME(nip),
REG_OFFSET_NAME(msr),
So I don't see why REG_OFFSET_NAME couldn't be common.
Sorry for the delay in responding to this.
OK, so you're saying architectures that don't want this constraint can
make their own macro. Seems to make this whole exercise slightly less
useful, but whatever.
Well yeah.
In fact of the 4 arches that use REG_OFFSET_NAME, 2 already have another macro
for specially named registers (powerpc & sh).
I see three ways to go here:
1) Leave it as is.
2) Force all architectures to use a common definition.
3) Provide a common definition that all architectures (except "arm")
currently using this functionality will use.
I have a v2 patch to implement #3, ready to post. Do we think this is
the way to go?
Yeah I think it is. How are you making it conditional? Just #ifndef
REG_OFFSET_NAME?
I'm just defining a new macro for arm. The macro is only invoked in one
arm file. Then the REG_OFFSET_NAME macro goes unused for this architecture.
I don't like #2 because I really don't want to rename all
uses of the current register fields for arm since this is
architecture-specific code to begin with and since it affects code in 39
arm source files.
I guess you're talking about renaming all the ARM_x regs to x. That would
likely cause problems because they're implemented as #defines,
eg. #define r0 uregs[0] would probably confuse your assembler.
Yeah, and I had not looked further to the implications of doing that but
I see you've found where it is a genuine problem.
The clean thing to do would be to have the in-kernel struct pt_regs have actual
named members, but that would still be an intrusive change.
cheers
Thanks,
-dl
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
