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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 06 Aug 2014 09:09:11 +0200
From:	walter harms <wharms@....de>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
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



Am 05.08.2014 21:49, schrieb David Miller:
> 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.
> 
thx for info,

would you mind to add your explanation ?
It is much mor helpful that the comment right now.

re,
 wh

--
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/