From: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>
To: David Long <dave.long@linaro.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
Behan Webster <behanw@converseincode.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Jan Willeke <willeke@de.ibm.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Nikolay Borisov <Nikolay.Borisov@arm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@codeaurora.org>,
Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-ker>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Move the pt_regs_offset struct definition from arch to common include file
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:29:05 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1435634945.24866.2.camel@ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5581BCD0.2040405@linaro.org>
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 14:30 -0400, David Long wrote:
> On 06/16/15 09:17, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:42 AM, David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> #define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) \
> >> {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, ARM_##r)}
> >> #define REG_OFFSET_END {.name = NULL, .offset = 0}
> >
> > Can't you also move these? ARM is complicated with the "ARM_"
> > prefixing, but the others appear to be the same. Maybe you can remove
> > the prefix or redefine the macro for ARM.
>
> That would mandate that all the architecture-specific pt_regs structures
> would have to use a top-level named field for each named register.
Why does it mandate that?
See eg. powerpc where we use REG_OFFSET_NAME for the top-level named fields and
then a different macro for the array elements:
#define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r)}
#define GPR_OFFSET_NAME(num) \
{.name = STR(gpr##num), .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, gpr[num])}
static const struct pt_regs_offset regoffset_table[] = {
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(0),
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(1),
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(2),
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(3),
...
REG_OFFSET_NAME(nip),
REG_OFFSET_NAME(msr),
So I don't see why REG_OFFSET_NAME couldn't be common.
cheers
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Move the pt_regs_offset struct definition from arch to common include file
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 03:29:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1435634945.24866.2.camel@ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5581BCD0.2040405@linaro.org>
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 14:30 -0400, David Long wrote:
> On 06/16/15 09:17, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:42 AM, David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> #define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) \
> >> {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, ARM_##r)}
> >> #define REG_OFFSET_END {.name = NULL, .offset = 0}
> >
> > Can't you also move these? ARM is complicated with the "ARM_"
> > prefixing, but the others appear to be the same. Maybe you can remove
> > the prefix or redefine the macro for ARM.
>
> That would mandate that all the architecture-specific pt_regs structures
> would have to use a top-level named field for each named register.
Why does it mandate that?
See eg. powerpc where we use REG_OFFSET_NAME for the top-level named fields and
then a different macro for the array elements:
#define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r)}
#define GPR_OFFSET_NAME(num) \
{.name = STR(gpr##num), .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, gpr[num])}
static const struct pt_regs_offset regoffset_table[] = {
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(0),
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(1),
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(2),
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(3),
...
REG_OFFSET_NAME(nip),
REG_OFFSET_NAME(msr),
So I don't see why REG_OFFSET_NAME couldn't be common.
cheers
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>
To: David Long <dave.long@linaro.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
Behan Webster <behanw@converseincode.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Jan Willeke <willeke@de.ibm.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Nikolay Borisov <Nikolay.Borisov@arm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@codeaurora.org>,
Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, SH-Linux <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
linux390@de.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Move the pt_regs_offset struct definition from arch to common include file
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:29:05 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1435634945.24866.2.camel@ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5581BCD0.2040405@linaro.org>
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 14:30 -0400, David Long wrote:
> On 06/16/15 09:17, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:42 AM, David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> #define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) \
> >> {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, ARM_##r)}
> >> #define REG_OFFSET_END {.name = NULL, .offset = 0}
> >
> > Can't you also move these? ARM is complicated with the "ARM_"
> > prefixing, but the others appear to be the same. Maybe you can remove
> > the prefix or redefine the macro for ARM.
>
> That would mandate that all the architecture-specific pt_regs structures
> would have to use a top-level named field for each named register.
Why does it mandate that?
See eg. powerpc where we use REG_OFFSET_NAME for the top-level named fields and
then a different macro for the array elements:
#define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r)}
#define GPR_OFFSET_NAME(num) \
{.name = STR(gpr##num), .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, gpr[num])}
static const struct pt_regs_offset regoffset_table[] = {
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(0),
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(1),
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(2),
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(3),
...
REG_OFFSET_NAME(nip),
REG_OFFSET_NAME(msr),
So I don't see why REG_OFFSET_NAME couldn't be common.
cheers
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: michael@ellerman.id.au (Michael Ellerman)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Move the pt_regs_offset struct definition from arch to common include file
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:29:05 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1435634945.24866.2.camel@ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5581BCD0.2040405@linaro.org>
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 14:30 -0400, David Long wrote:
> On 06/16/15 09:17, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:42 AM, David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> #define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) \
> >> {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, ARM_##r)}
> >> #define REG_OFFSET_END {.name = NULL, .offset = 0}
> >
> > Can't you also move these? ARM is complicated with the "ARM_"
> > prefixing, but the others appear to be the same. Maybe you can remove
> > the prefix or redefine the macro for ARM.
>
> That would mandate that all the architecture-specific pt_regs structures
> would have to use a top-level named field for each named register.
Why does it mandate that?
See eg. powerpc where we use REG_OFFSET_NAME for the top-level named fields and
then a different macro for the array elements:
#define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r)}
#define GPR_OFFSET_NAME(num) \
{.name = STR(gpr##num), .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, gpr[num])}
static const struct pt_regs_offset regoffset_table[] = {
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(0),
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(1),
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(2),
GPR_OFFSET_NAME(3),
...
REG_OFFSET_NAME(nip),
REG_OFFSET_NAME(msr),
So I don't see why REG_OFFSET_NAME couldn't be common.
cheers
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-30 3:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 91+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-15 16:42 [PATCH 0/2] Consolidate redundant register/stack access code David Long
2015-06-15 16:42 ` David Long
2015-06-15 16:42 ` David Long
2015-06-15 16:42 ` David Long
2015-06-15 16:42 ` [PATCH 1/2] Move the pt_regs_offset struct definition from arch to common include file David Long
2015-06-15 16:42 ` David Long
2015-06-15 16:42 ` David Long
2015-06-15 16:42 ` David Long
2015-06-16 13:17 ` Rob Herring
2015-06-16 13:17 ` Rob Herring
2015-06-16 13:17 ` Rob Herring
2015-06-16 13:17 ` Rob Herring
2015-06-17 18:30 ` David Long
2015-06-17 18:30 ` David Long
2015-06-17 18:30 ` David Long
2015-06-17 18:30 ` David Long
2015-06-30 3:29 ` Michael Ellerman [this message]
2015-06-30 3:29 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-06-30 3:29 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-06-30 3:29 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-07-22 4:46 ` David Long
2015-07-22 4:46 ` David Long
2015-07-22 4:46 ` David Long
2015-07-22 4:46 ` David Long
2015-07-22 5:11 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-07-22 5:11 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-07-22 5:11 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-07-22 5:11 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-07-22 13:30 ` David Long
2015-07-22 13:30 ` David Long
2015-07-22 13:30 ` David Long
2015-07-22 13:30 ` David Long
2015-06-19 4:19 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-06-19 4:19 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-06-19 4:19 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-06-19 4:19 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-06-19 14:12 ` David Long
2015-06-19 14:12 ` David Long
2015-06-19 14:12 ` David Long
2015-06-19 14:12 ` David Long
2015-06-19 14:12 ` David Long
2015-06-19 16:58 ` Kees Cook
2015-06-19 16:58 ` Kees Cook
2015-06-19 16:58 ` Kees Cook
2015-06-19 16:58 ` Kees Cook
2015-06-19 16:58 ` Kees Cook
2015-06-26 18:35 ` David Long
2015-06-26 18:35 ` David Long
2015-06-26 18:35 ` David Long
2015-06-26 18:35 ` David Long
2015-06-23 3:32 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-06-23 3:32 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-06-23 3:32 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-06-23 3:32 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-06-23 3:32 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-06-23 13:48 ` David Long
2015-06-23 13:48 ` David Long
2015-06-23 13:48 ` David Long
2015-06-23 13:48 ` David Long
2015-06-24 4:07 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-06-24 4:07 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-06-24 4:07 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-06-24 4:07 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-06-24 13:49 ` David Long
2015-06-24 13:49 ` David Long
2015-06-24 13:49 ` David Long
2015-06-24 13:49 ` David Long
2015-06-15 16:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] Consolidate redundant register/stack access code David Long
2015-06-15 16:42 ` David Long
2015-06-15 16:42 ` David Long
2015-06-15 16:42 ` David Long
2015-06-18 18:13 ` rkuo
2015-06-18 18:13 ` rkuo
2015-06-18 18:13 ` rkuo
2015-06-18 18:13 ` rkuo
2015-06-15 20:44 ` [PATCH 0/2] " Kees Cook
2015-06-15 20:44 ` Kees Cook
2015-06-15 20:44 ` Kees Cook
2015-06-15 20:44 ` Kees Cook
2015-06-15 20:58 ` David Long
2015-06-15 20:58 ` David Long
2015-06-15 20:58 ` David Long
2015-06-15 20:58 ` David Long
2015-06-16 8:12 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2015-06-16 8:12 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2015-06-16 8:12 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2015-06-16 8:12 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2015-06-16 17:39 ` Will Deacon
2015-06-16 17:39 ` Will Deacon
2015-06-16 17:39 ` Will Deacon
2015-06-16 17:39 ` Will Deacon
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=1435634945.24866.2.camel@ellerman.id.au \
--to=michael@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=Nikolay.Borisov@arm.com \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=behanw@converseincode.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=dave.long@linaro.org \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=rkuo@codeaurora.org \
--cc=robherring2@gmail.com \
--cc=roland@hack.frob.com \
--cc=rric@kernel.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=willeke@de.ibm.com \
/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.