linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arch/sparc/math-emu/math

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20140805.124939.1701979639778778101.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 05 Aug 2014 12:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	wharms@....de
Cc:	andrey.krieger.utkin@...il.com, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/sparc/math-emu/math_32.c: drop stray break
 operator

From: walter harms <wharms@....de>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 09:11:52 +0200

> 
> 
> Am 04.08.2014 22:47, schrieb Andrey Utkin:
>> This commit is a guesswork, but it seems to make sense to drop this
>> break, as otherwise the following line is never executed and becomes
>> dead code. And that following line actually saves the result of
>> local calculation by the pointer given in function argument. So the
>> proposed change makes sense if this code in the whole makes sense (but I
>> am unable to analyze it in the whole).
>> 
>> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81641
>> Reported-by: David Binderman <dcb314@...mail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Utkin <andrey.krieger.utkin@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/sparc/math-emu/math_32.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/sparc/math-emu/math_32.c b/arch/sparc/math-emu/math_32.c
>> index aa4d55b..5ce8f2f 100644
>> --- a/arch/sparc/math-emu/math_32.c
>> +++ b/arch/sparc/math-emu/math_32.c
>> @@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ static int do_one_mathemu(u32 insn, unsigned long *pfsr, unsigned long *fregs)
>>  		case 0: fsr = *pfsr;
>>  			if (IR == -1) IR = 2;
>>  			/* fcc is always fcc0 */
> 
> The patch looks ok, but can somebody comment on this comment ?
> what "fcc" ? should it be a fsr ?

It's the condition code field inside of the %fsr register.

In 32-bit chips there is only one set of condition codes, whereas
on 64-bit chips there are 4 sets referred to as fcc0, fcc1, fcc2,
and fcc3.

That's what this comment is talking about.
--
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/