Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1189653 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-22 07:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-07-22 15:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Move the pt_regs_offset struct definition from arch to common include file Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2015-07-22 07:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Move the pt_regs_offset struct definition from arch to common include file David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> - 2015-07-22 15:40 +0200
| From | Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-22 07:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] Move the pt_regs_offset struct definition from arch to common include file |
| Message-ID | <pOUBI-5Dv-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 00:46 -0400, David Long wrote:
> On 06/29/15 23:29, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 14:30 -0400, David Long wrote:
> >> On 06/16/15 09:17, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:42 AM, David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> #define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) \
> >>>> {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, ARM_##r)}
> >>>> #define REG_OFFSET_END {.name = NULL, .offset = 0}
> >>>
> >>> Can't you also move these? ARM is complicated with the "ARM_"
> >>> prefixing, but the others appear to be the same. Maybe you can remove
> >>> the prefix or redefine the macro for ARM.
> >>
> >> That would mandate that all the architecture-specific pt_regs structures
> >> would have to use a top-level named field for each named register.
> >
> > Why does it mandate that?
> >
> > See eg. powerpc where we use REG_OFFSET_NAME for the top-level named fields and
> > then a different macro for the array elements:
> >
> > #define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r)}
> > #define GPR_OFFSET_NAME(num) \
> > {.name = STR(gpr##num), .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, gpr[num])}
> >
> > static const struct pt_regs_offset regoffset_table[] = {
> > GPR_OFFSET_NAME(0),
> > GPR_OFFSET_NAME(1),
> > GPR_OFFSET_NAME(2),
> > GPR_OFFSET_NAME(3),
> > ...
> > REG_OFFSET_NAME(nip),
> > REG_OFFSET_NAME(msr),
> >
> >
> > So I don't see why REG_OFFSET_NAME couldn't be common.
> >
>
> Sorry for the delay in responding to this.
>
> OK, so you're saying architectures that don't want this constraint can
> make their own macro. Seems to make this whole exercise slightly less
> useful, but whatever.
Well yeah.
In fact of the 4 arches that use REG_OFFSET_NAME, 2 already have another macro
for specially named registers (powerpc & sh).
> I see three ways to go here:
>
> 1) Leave it as is.
> 2) Force all architectures to use a common definition.
> 3) Provide a common definition that all architectures (except "arm")
> currently using this functionality will use.
>
> I have a v2 patch to implement #3, ready to post. Do we think this is
> the way to go?
Yeah I think it is. How are you making it conditional? Just #ifndef REG_OFFSET_NAME?
> I don't like #2 because I really don't want to rename all
> uses of the current register fields for arm since this is
> architecture-specific code to begin with and since it affects code in 39
> arm source files.
I guess you're talking about renaming all the ARM_x regs to x. That would
likely cause problems because they're implemented as #defines,
eg. #define r0 uregs[0] would probably confuse your assembler.
The clean thing to do would be to have the in-kernel struct pt_regs have actual
named members, but that would still be an intrusive change.
cheers
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-22 15:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pP2pz-8g1-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1189653 |
On 07/22/15 01:11, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 00:46 -0400, David Long wrote:
>> On 06/29/15 23:29, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 14:30 -0400, David Long wrote:
>>>> On 06/16/15 09:17, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:42 AM, David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) \
>>>>>> {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, ARM_##r)}
>>>>>> #define REG_OFFSET_END {.name = NULL, .offset = 0}
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't you also move these? ARM is complicated with the "ARM_"
>>>>> prefixing, but the others appear to be the same. Maybe you can remove
>>>>> the prefix or redefine the macro for ARM.
>>>>
>>>> That would mandate that all the architecture-specific pt_regs structures
>>>> would have to use a top-level named field for each named register.
>>>
>>> Why does it mandate that?
>>>
>>> See eg. powerpc where we use REG_OFFSET_NAME for the top-level named fields and
>>> then a different macro for the array elements:
>>>
>>> #define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r)}
>>> #define GPR_OFFSET_NAME(num) \
>>> {.name = STR(gpr##num), .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, gpr[num])}
>>>
>>> static const struct pt_regs_offset regoffset_table[] = {
>>> GPR_OFFSET_NAME(0),
>>> GPR_OFFSET_NAME(1),
>>> GPR_OFFSET_NAME(2),
>>> GPR_OFFSET_NAME(3),
>>> ...
>>> REG_OFFSET_NAME(nip),
>>> REG_OFFSET_NAME(msr),
>>>
>>>
>>> So I don't see why REG_OFFSET_NAME couldn't be common.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry for the delay in responding to this.
>>
>> OK, so you're saying architectures that don't want this constraint can
>> make their own macro. Seems to make this whole exercise slightly less
>> useful, but whatever.
>
> Well yeah.
>
> In fact of the 4 arches that use REG_OFFSET_NAME, 2 already have another macro
> for specially named registers (powerpc & sh).
>
>> I see three ways to go here:
>>
>> 1) Leave it as is.
>> 2) Force all architectures to use a common definition.
>> 3) Provide a common definition that all architectures (except "arm")
>> currently using this functionality will use.
>>
>> I have a v2 patch to implement #3, ready to post. Do we think this is
>> the way to go?
>
> Yeah I think it is. How are you making it conditional? Just #ifndef REG_OFFSET_NAME?
>
I'm just defining a new macro for arm. The macro is only invoked in one
arm file. Then the REG_OFFSET_NAME macro goes unused for this architecture.
>> I don't like #2 because I really don't want to rename all
>> uses of the current register fields for arm since this is
>> architecture-specific code to begin with and since it affects code in 39
>> arm source files.
>
> I guess you're talking about renaming all the ARM_x regs to x. That would
> likely cause problems because they're implemented as #defines,
> eg. #define r0 uregs[0] would probably confuse your assembler.
>
Yeah, and I had not looked further to the implications of doing that but
I see you've found where it is a genuine problem.
> The clean thing to do would be to have the in-kernel struct pt_regs have actual
> named members, but that would still be an intrusive change.
>
> cheers
>
>
Thanks,
-dl
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web