[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111201165718.GJ27394@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:57:18 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"android-virt@...ts.cs.columbia.edu"
<android-virt@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"embeddedxen-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<embeddedxen-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Android-virt] [Embeddedxen-devel] [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen
port to Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 04:44:40PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 01 December 2011, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 03:42:19PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Thursday 01 December 2011, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > How do you deal with signed integer arguments passed into SVC or HVC from
> > > a caller? If I understand the architecture correctly, the upper
> > > halves of the argument register end up zero-padded, while the callee
> > > expects sign-extension.
> >
> > If you treat it as an "int" (32-bit) and function prototype defined
> > accordingly, then the generated code only accesses it as a W (rather
> > than X) register and the top 32-bit part is ignored (no need for
> > sign-extension). If it is defined as a "long" in the 32-bit world, then
> > it indeed needs explicit conversion given the different sizes for long
> > (for example sys_lseek, the second argument is a 'long' and we do
> > explicit sign extension in the wrapper).
...
> What about unsigned long and pointer? Can we always rely on the upper
> half of the register to be zero-filled when we get an exception from 32
> bit into 64 bit state, or do we also have to zero-extend those?
They are also fine, no need for zero-extension.
--
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists