On Thu, 2023-02-09 at 07:15 +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > +static inline int patch_uint(u32 *addr, unsigned int val)
> > +{
> > + return patch_instruction(addr, ppc_inst(val));
>
> Would it make more sense that patch_instruction() calls patch_uint()
> instead of the reverse ?
>
That'
Le 07/02/2023 à 02:56, Benjamin Gray a écrit :
> patch_instruction() is designed for patching instructions in otherwise
> readonly memory. Other consumers also sometimes need to patch readonly
> memory, so have abused patch_instruction() for arbitrary data patches.
>
> This is a problem on ppc64
patch_instruction() is designed for patching instructions in otherwise
readonly memory. Other consumers also sometimes need to patch readonly
memory, so have abused patch_instruction() for arbitrary data patches.
This is a problem on ppc64 as patch_instruction() decides on the patch
width using th
