From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Greg Kurz <gkurz@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH REPOST 3/3] powerpc/vphn: move endianness fixing to vphn_unpack_associativity()
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:39:23 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1417045163.5089.67.camel@kernel.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141117174244.7717.83028.stgit@bahia.local>
On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 18:42 +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> The first argument to vphn_unpack_associativity() is a const long *, but the
> parsing code expects __be64 values actually. This is inconsistent. We should
> either pass a const __be64 * or change vphn_unpack_associativity() so that
> it fixes endianness by itself.
>
> This patch does the latter, since the caller doesn't need to know about
> endianness and this allows to fix significant 64-bit values only. Please
> note that the previous code was able to cope with 32-bit fields being split
> accross two consecutives 64-bit values. Since PAPR+ doesn't say this cannot
> happen, the behaviour was kept. It requires extra checking to know when fixing
> is needed though.
While I agree with moving the endian fixing down, the patch makes me
nervous. Note that I don't fully understand the format of what we are
parsing here so I might be wrong but ...
>
> #define VPHN_FIELD_UNUSED (0xffff)
> #define VPHN_FIELD_MSB (0x8000)
> #define VPHN_FIELD_MASK (~VPHN_FIELD_MSB)
>
> - for (i = 1; i < VPHN_ASSOC_BUFSIZE; i++) {
> - if (be16_to_cpup(field) == VPHN_FIELD_UNUSED)
> + for (i = 1, j = 0, k = 0; i < VPHN_ASSOC_BUFSIZE;) {
> + u16 field;
> +
> + if (j % 4 == 0) {
> + fixed.packed[k] = cpu_to_be64(packed[k]);
> + k++;
> + }
So we have essentially a bunch of 16-bit fields ... the above loads and
swap a whole 4 of them at once. However that means not only we byteswap
them individually, but we also flip the order of the fields. This is
ok ?
> + field = be16_to_cpu(fixed.field[j]);
> +
> + if (field == VPHN_FIELD_UNUSED)
> /* All significant fields processed.
> */
> break;
For example, we might have USED,USED,USED,UNUSED ... after the swap, we
now have UNUSED,USED,USED,USED ... and we stop parsing in the above
line on the first one. Or am I missing something ?
> - if (be16_to_cpup(field) & VPHN_FIELD_MSB) {
> + if (field & VPHN_FIELD_MSB) {
> /* Data is in the lower 15 bits of this field */
> - unpacked[i] = cpu_to_be32(
> - be16_to_cpup(field) & VPHN_FIELD_MASK);
> - field++;
> + unpacked[i++] = cpu_to_be32(field & VPHN_FIELD_MASK);
> + j++;
> } else {
> /* Data is in the lower 15 bits of this field
> * concatenated with the next 16 bit field
> */
> - unpacked[i] = *((__be32 *)field);
> - field += 2;
> + if (unlikely(j % 4 == 3)) {
> + /* The next field is to be copied from the next
> + * 64-bit input value. We must fix it now.
> + */
> + fixed.packed[k] = cpu_to_be64(packed[k]);
> + k++;
> + }
> +
> + unpacked[i++] = *((__be32 *)&fixed.field[j]);
> + j += 2;
> }
> }
>
> @@ -1460,11 +1479,8 @@ static long hcall_vphn(unsigned long cpu, __be32 *associativity)
> long retbuf[PLPAR_HCALL9_BUFSIZE] = {0};
> u64 flags = 1;
> int hwcpu = get_hard_smp_processor_id(cpu);
> - int i;
>
> rc = plpar_hcall9(H_HOME_NODE_ASSOCIATIVITY, retbuf, flags, hwcpu);
> - for (i = 0; i < VPHN_REGISTER_COUNT; i++)
> - retbuf[i] = cpu_to_be64(retbuf[i]);
> vphn_unpack_associativity(retbuf, associativity);
>
> return rc;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-26 23:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-17 17:42 [PATCH REPOST 0/3] VPHN parsing fixes Greg Kurz
2014-11-17 17:42 ` [PATCH REPOST 1/3] powerpc/vphn: clarify the H_HOME_NODE_ASSOCIATIVITY API Greg Kurz
2014-11-17 17:42 ` [PATCH REPOST 2/3] powerpc/vphn: simplify the parsing code Greg Kurz
2014-11-17 17:42 ` [PATCH REPOST 3/3] powerpc/vphn: move endianness fixing to vphn_unpack_associativity() Greg Kurz
2014-11-26 23:39 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2014-11-27 9:28 ` Greg Kurz
2014-11-28 1:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-11-28 8:39 ` Greg Kurz
2014-12-01 9:17 ` Michael Ellerman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1417045163.5089.67.camel@kernel.crashing.org \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=gkurz@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.