From: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
Ilie Halip <ilie.halip@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
Mete Durlu <meted@linux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/test_unwind: use raw opcode instead of invalid instruction
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 12:09:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YZeF4JjWIcTMtaaT@osiris> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <658a63b5-2d18-2837-9639-75a14c959f73@de.ibm.com>
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:57:05AM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > > > > - " mvcl %%r1,%%r1\n"
> > > > > + " .insn e,0x0e11\n" /* mvcl %%r1,%%r1" */
> >
> > Sorry, I disagree with this. As you said above rr would be the correct
> > format for this instruction. If we go for the e format then we should
> > also use an instruction with e format.
> > Which in this case would simply be an illegal opcode, which would be
> > sufficient for what this code is good for: ".insn e,0x0000".
>
> Why not simply use .short then?
.short bypasses all sanity checks while .insn does not, so I think
that should be preferred. But I don't care too much.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-19 11:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-17 17:48 [PATCH] s390/test_unwind: use raw opcode instead of invalid instruction Ilie Halip
2021-11-19 1:10 ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-11-19 9:39 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-11-19 9:44 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-11-19 10:54 ` Heiko Carstens
2021-11-19 10:57 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-11-19 11:09 ` Heiko Carstens [this message]
2021-11-19 14:12 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-11-19 15:15 ` Heiko Carstens
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=YZeF4JjWIcTMtaaT@osiris \
--to=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=ilie.halip@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=meted@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=svens@linux.ibm.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