From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
To: "Carsten Langgaard" <carstenl@mips.com>, <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Bug in the _save_fp_context.
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:43:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <00e901c0b08b$50bed400$0deca8c0@Ulysses> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3AB61293.5652407C@mips.com
> I think there is a bug in the _save_fp_context function in
> arch/mips/kernel/r4k_fpu.S
>
> The problem is the following piece of code:
>
> jr ra
> .set nomacro
> EX(sw t0,SC_FPC_EIR(a0))
> nop
> .set macro
>
> First of all what should the ".set nomacro" do?
> If it means that the EX macro shouldn't be used then this entry wouldn't
> get into __ex_table, which would be wrong.
> But it look like it uses the macro anyway, regardless of the ".set
> nomacro", at least with the compiler I use.
Not surprising, really. "EX" is presumably a cpp macro
that gets expanded by gcc from the .S file, based on
some include file. .set directives affect only the assembler,
and would inhibit assembler-level macros only. I'm not
sure just what the definition of an assembler macro
would be - it may or may not include pseudo-instructions
like "la" or "li 32_bit_constant". I *think* that what the
author was trying to do here was to ensure that the
"sw" instruction in the EX expansion was really and
truly a single instruction.
> Never the less we do not handle entries in the __ex_table which is
> located in a branch delay.
> So we need to handle the situation where we take a page fault on an
> instruction which is located in a brach delay slot, or we don't put the
> "potential" faulting instruction in a delay slot.
>
> Any ideas, how we should handle this in a nice and clean way?
Is the __ex_table really ending up in the delay slot?
Just looking at the source, I have the impression
that the "sw t0,..." instruction should be in the delay
slot, followed by the __ex_table.
On another topic, now that I've patched the kernel to
turn off the stupid stuck interrupt on my Malta board,
I've realized that I can't just connect my old Atlas SCSI
disk. I'm torn between ordering a Tekram 390 PCI
SCSI card, which should be able to use our "MIPS
safe" NCR driver as-is (I hope) and buying an IDE
disk and going through the network install ritual.
Which do you recommend? One thing I really never
knew was just what kernel config options I need to
select to build a kernel that can do the NFS-root
bootstrap. Can you help me there?
Regards,
Kevin K.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
To: Carsten Langgaard <carstenl@mips.com>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Bug in the _save_fp_context.
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:43:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <00e901c0b08b$50bed400$0deca8c0@Ulysses> (raw)
Message-ID: <20010319154307.q3fWPrv0HR9bfOon8T2EZo71K8MpcaN4TFR6lC7PvyI@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3AB61293.5652407C@mips.com
> I think there is a bug in the _save_fp_context function in
> arch/mips/kernel/r4k_fpu.S
>
> The problem is the following piece of code:
>
> jr ra
> .set nomacro
> EX(sw t0,SC_FPC_EIR(a0))
> nop
> .set macro
>
> First of all what should the ".set nomacro" do?
> If it means that the EX macro shouldn't be used then this entry wouldn't
> get into __ex_table, which would be wrong.
> But it look like it uses the macro anyway, regardless of the ".set
> nomacro", at least with the compiler I use.
Not surprising, really. "EX" is presumably a cpp macro
that gets expanded by gcc from the .S file, based on
some include file. .set directives affect only the assembler,
and would inhibit assembler-level macros only. I'm not
sure just what the definition of an assembler macro
would be - it may or may not include pseudo-instructions
like "la" or "li 32_bit_constant". I *think* that what the
author was trying to do here was to ensure that the
"sw" instruction in the EX expansion was really and
truly a single instruction.
> Never the less we do not handle entries in the __ex_table which is
> located in a branch delay.
> So we need to handle the situation where we take a page fault on an
> instruction which is located in a brach delay slot, or we don't put the
> "potential" faulting instruction in a delay slot.
>
> Any ideas, how we should handle this in a nice and clean way?
Is the __ex_table really ending up in the delay slot?
Just looking at the source, I have the impression
that the "sw t0,..." instruction should be in the delay
slot, followed by the __ex_table.
On another topic, now that I've patched the kernel to
turn off the stupid stuck interrupt on my Malta board,
I've realized that I can't just connect my old Atlas SCSI
disk. I'm torn between ordering a Tekram 390 PCI
SCSI card, which should be able to use our "MIPS
safe" NCR driver as-is (I hope) and buying an IDE
disk and going through the network install ritual.
Which do you recommend? One thing I really never
knew was just what kernel config options I need to
select to build a kernel that can do the NFS-root
bootstrap. Can you help me there?
Regards,
Kevin K.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-19 15:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-03-19 14:07 Bug in the _save_fp_context Carsten Langgaard
2001-03-19 15:43 ` Kevin D. Kissell [this message]
2001-03-19 15:43 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-03-19 16:03 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-03-19 16:03 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-03-19 18:14 ` Jun Sun
2001-03-19 16:13 ` Carsten Langgaard
2001-03-19 18:10 ` SCSI card [Re: Bug in the _save_fp_context.] Jun Sun
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-01-17 13:34 Bug in the _save_fp_context Carsten Langgaard
[not found] ` <20020610114323.A25705@lucon.org>
2002-06-10 19:41 ` Carsten Langgaard
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='00e901c0b08b$50bed400$0deca8c0@Ulysses' \
--to=kevink@mips.com \
--cc=carstenl@mips.com \
--cc=linux-mips@oss.sgi.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox