On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:04:29PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 03:47:43PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 03:21:58PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 07:44:39PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > > Since normal execution of any non
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 03:47:43PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 03:21:58PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 07:44:39PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > Since normal execution of any non-branch instruction resets the
> > > PSTATE BTYPE field to 0, so do th
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 03:21:58PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 07:44:39PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > Since normal execution of any non-branch instruction resets the
> > PSTATE BTYPE field to 0, so do the same thing when emulating a
> > trapped instruction.
> >
> > Branc
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 07:44:39PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> Since normal execution of any non-branch instruction resets the
> PSTATE BTYPE field to 0, so do the same thing when emulating a
> trapped instruction.
>
> Branches don't trap directly, so we should never need to assign a
> non-zero va
Since normal execution of any non-branch instruction resets the
PSTATE BTYPE field to 0, so do the same thing when emulating a
trapped instruction.
Branches don't trap directly, so we should never need to assign a
non-zero value to BTYPE here.
Signed-off-by: Dave Martin
---
arch/arm64/kernel/tr
5 matches
Mail list logo
