[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1381280599.15322.1.camel@concordia>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:03:19 +1100
From: Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>
To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9][v5] powerpc: implement is_instr_load_store().
On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 12:31 -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> Michael Ellerman [michael@...erman.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,
Those are the external process ID instructions, which I've never heard
of anyone using, I think we can ignore them.
> 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 ?
Yes I think so. I didn't check any of the other opcodes for you.
cheers
--
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