From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com (e8.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.138])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "e8.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "GeoTrust SSL CA" (not verified))
 by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 620E42C00C8
 for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Wed,  9 Oct 2013 06:31:43 +1100 (EST)
Received: from /spool/local
 by e8.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only!
 Violators will be prosecuted
 for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org> from <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>;
 Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:31:40 -0400
Received: from b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com
 [9.57.198.24])
 by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFC226E803F
 for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Tue,  8 Oct 2013 15:31:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64])
 by b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id
 r98JVbPO55705700
 for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 19:31:37 GMT
Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
 by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id
 r98JVaoT020668
 for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:31:37 -0400
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:31:17 -0700
From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9][v5] powerpc: implement is_instr_load_store().
Message-ID: <20131008193117.GA699@us.ibm.com>
References: <1380672911-12812-1-git-send-email-sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1380672911-12812-6-git-send-email-sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20131003053519.GC17237@concordia>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20131003053519.GC17237@concordia>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <michaele@au1.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
 Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
 Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

Michael Ellerman [michael@ellerman.id.au] wrote:
| bool is_load_store(int ext_opcode)
| {
|         upper = ext_opcode >> 5;
|         lower = ext_opcode & 0x1f;
| 
|         /* Short circuit as many misses as we can */
|         if (lower < 3 || lower > 23)
|             return false;

I see some loads/stores like these which are not covered by
the above check. Is it ok to ignore them ?

	lower == 29: ldepx, stdepx, eviddepx, evstddepx

	lower == 31: lwepx, lbepx, lfdepx, stfdepx,

Looking through the opcode maps, I also see these for primary
op code 4:

	evldd, evlddx, evldwx, evldw, evldh, evldhx.

Should we include those also ?

Sukadev