On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 08:35 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 10:13:00AM -0500, Tom Musta wrote: > > To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > > Subject: [PATCH] powerpc: OE=1 Form Instructions Not Decoded Correctly > > From: Tom Musta <tommu...@gmail.com> > > > > PowerISA uses instruction bit 21 to indicate that the overflow (OV) bit > > of the XER is to be set, as well as its corresponding sticky bit (SO). > > This patch addresses two defects in the implementation of the PowerISA > > single step code for this category of instructions: (a) the OE=1 case > > is not correctly accounted for in the case statement for the extended > > opcode handling. (b) the implementation is not setting XER[OV] and > > XER[SO]. > > Are you seeing any actual problems arising from the OE=1 instructions > not being emulated? This code was designed primarily for emulating > instructions in the kernel, which is written in C, and the C compiler > doesn't emit OE=1 instructions -- or at least it didn't in the past. > So, does the impetus for this change come because the C compiler is > now emitting these instructions, or because this code is being used on > non-kernel instructions, or just for completeness? Your patch > description needs to include answers to these kinds of questions.
Isn't that code occasionally used with uprobes too nowadays ? Cheers, Ben. > Also, you need to indent your code correctly according to > Documentation/CodingStyle. > > Paul. > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
