From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:05:43 +0100 Subject: your mail In-Reply-To: <20150421132139.GE3996@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20150421104634.GA3996@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> <20150421111042.GB3996@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> <20150421112420.GV12732@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20150421125049.GW12732@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20150421132139.GE3996@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <20150421140543.GY12732@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 02:21:46PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 02:10:42PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Yes, that is much better. It is a pity that we still can't use '| 1' > > but the fact that you are forced to use 'adr' now probably mostly > > eliminates the risk regarding that. > > > > I did notice that are are 4 or 5 instances (commented inline) of an > > ARM to thumb mode switch which can just as easily be implemented as > > 'blx 1f' instead of using this badr macro (whose use we want to > > discourage, I assume, since the address arithmetic is still slightly > > dodgy). Do you think we should do something about that as well? > > Err, probably. That just looks like an oversight -- I think I'm > responsible for at least some of those. > > There's no good reason not to replace adr+BSYM+bx. > > For switches from ARM, this could be replaced with bx