From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752834AbdJLQfj convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:35:39 -0400 Received: from 20pmail.ess.barracuda.com ([64.235.154.233]:45617 "EHLO 20pmail.ess.barracuda.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752396AbdJLQfh (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:35:37 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 6557 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:34:47 EDT Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:33:30 +0100 From: James Hogan To: Aleksandar Markovic CC: Aleksandar Markovic , Miodrag Dinic , Paul Burton , "Petar Jovanovic" , Raghu Gandham , Ralf Baechle , "linux-mips@linux-mips.org" , Douglas Leung , Goran Ferenc , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Maciej Rozycki , Manuel Lauss , "Masahiro Yamada" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] MIPS: math-emu: Update debugfs FP exception stats for certain instructions Message-ID: <20171012163330.GG15235@jhogan-linux> References: <20171012101753.GB15235@jhogan-linux> <683c-59df7500-1-10d973a0@9889400> <20171012144434.GF15235@jhogan-linux> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) X-Originating-IP: [192.168.154.110] X-BESS-ID: 1507825998-321459-6171-8178-14 X-BESS-VER: 2017.12-r1709122024 X-BESS-Apparent-Source-IP: 12.201.5.28 X-BESS-Outbound-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-BESS-Outbound-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.185923 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------- 0.00 BSF_BESS_OUTBOUND META: BESS Outbound X-BESS-Outbound-Spam-Status: SCORE=0.00 using account:ESS59374 scores of KILL_LEVEL=7.0 tests=BSF_BESS_OUTBOUND X-BESS-BRTS-Status: 1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 03:54:48PM +0000, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: > > This patch fixes something, I think it should > > a) be clear in the commit message what is fixed > > b) be tagged for stable (though that can always be done > > retrospectively) > > If you agree, I am going to submit v2 of the series, that would fully > address these concerns. > > Additionally, it seems to me that a new round of testing that tests > involved code paths under various scenarios would be appropriate > and I am going to do that. awesome, thanks! > > Note: thats the one in fpux_emu(), not fpu_emu() which this patch > > modifies. > > Yes, my bad, wanting to respond as quickly as possible, I inserted > the segment from fpux_emu(), not fpu_emu() as I should have. > > By the way, and not related to this patch, I see only 4 (out of 5) > exceptions are handled in fpux_emu() case (division-by-zero is not > handled), I presume this is fine (probably division-by-zero not > needed), isn't it? Yeh I just spotted that too. I agree that it only seems to be division instructions (fdiv_op, frsqrt_op, and frecip_op) that need it, which are all handled in fpu_emu(), so it should be fine as is. > > I truly appreciate your analysis and help. No problem Cheers James