From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] [RFC] Add condition code checking to SWP emulation handler.
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:53:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111121185351.GL20611@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111121183058.28964.79067.stgit@localhost6.localdomain6>
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 06:30:58PM +0000, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/swp_emulate.c b/arch/arm/kernel/swp_emulate.c
> index 5f452f8..2e379d5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/swp_emulate.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/swp_emulate.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> #include <linux/syscalls.h>
> #include <linux/perf_event.h>
>
> +#include <asm/opcodes.h>
> #include <asm/traps.h>
> #include <asm/uaccess.h>
>
> @@ -183,6 +184,16 @@ static int swp_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int instr)
> unsigned int address, destreg, data, type;
> unsigned int res = 0;
>
> + res = arm_check_condition(instr, regs->ARM_cpsr);
> + if (!res) {
> + /* Condition failed - return to next instruction */
> + regs->ARM_pc += 4;
> + return 0;
> + } else if (res != 1) {
> + /* If unconditional encoding - not a SWP, undef */
> + return -EFAULT;
> + }
> +
> perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_EMULATION_FAULTS, 1, regs, regs->ARM_pc);
Although the definition of this perf event is by no means well defined, I
think I'd like it to increment even if the opcode condigion isn't satisfied.
After all, we *have* faulted by this point, we just haven't needed to do
anything much in the handler.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-21 18:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-21 18:30 [PATCH 1/4] [RFC] Add generic ARM instruction set condition code checks Leif Lindholm
2011-11-21 18:30 ` [PATCH 2/4] [RFC] Use generic ARM instruction set condition code checks for nwfpe Leif Lindholm
2011-11-21 18:30 ` [PATCH 3/4] [RFC] Add condition code checking to SWP emulation handler Leif Lindholm
2011-11-21 18:53 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2011-11-21 18:31 ` [PATCH 4/4] [RFC] Use generic ARM instruction set condition code checks for kprobes Leif Lindholm
2011-11-22 9:13 ` Tixy
[not found] ` <4ECE78B6.9040408@arm.com>
2011-11-24 19:40 ` Tixy
2011-11-25 13:29 ` Leif Lindholm
2011-11-21 18:52 ` [PATCH 1/4] [RFC] Add generic ARM instruction set condition code checks Will Deacon
2011-11-21 19:08 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-11-22 10:18 ` Dave Martin
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=20111121185351.GL20611@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).