Messages in this thread | | | From | Puranjay Mohan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next 6/8] arm32, bpf: add support for 64 bit division instruction | Date | Wed, 06 Sep 2023 19:19:50 +0000 |
| |
On Wed, Sep 06 2023, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 09:29:19AM +0000, Puranjay Mohan wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 05 2023, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 09:06:19PM +0000, Puranjay Mohan wrote: >> Actually, there can also be a situation where rd[1] != ARM_R0 && rd[1] != ARM_R2, >> so should I do it like: >> >> if (rd[1] != ARM_R0 && rd[1] != ARM_R2) { >> emit(ARM_POP(BIT(ARM_R0) | BIT(ARM_R1)), ctx); >> emit(ARM_POP(BIT(ARM_R2) | BIT(ARM_R3)), ctx); >> } else if (rd[1] != ARM_R0) { >> emit(ARM_POP(BIT(ARM_R0) | BIT(ARM_R1)), ctx); >> emit(ARM_ADD_I(ARM_SP, ARM_SP, 8), ctx); >> } else if (rd[1] != ARM_R2) { >> emit(ARM_ADD_I(ARM_SP, ARM_SP, 8), ctx); >> emit(ARM_POP(BIT(ARM_R2) | BIT(ARM_R3)), ctx); >> } else { >> emit(ARM_ADD_I(ARM_SP, ARM_SP, 16), ctx); >> } > > Are you sure all four states are possible?
ohh!
I just realized that the last else will never run. rd[1] can never be equal to both ARM_R0 and ARM_R2. Will fix it in V3 as I already sent out the V2.
I need to learn to leave patches on the list for few days before re-spinning.
Thanks, Puranjay
| |