linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] MIPS: cpu-probe: move fpu probing/handling into its own file

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: <20201012102934.GA7765@alpha.franken.de>
Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:29:34 +0200
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
Cc:     linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] MIPS: cpu-probe: move fpu probing/handling into
 its own file

On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 01:30:38AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> 
> > +			/*
> > +			 * MAC2008 toolchain never landed in real world, so we're only
> > +			 * testing whether it can be disabled and don't try to enabled
> > +			 * it.
> > +			 */
> > +			fcsr0 = fcsr & ~(FPU_CSR_ABS2008 | FPU_CSR_NAN2008 | FPU_CSR_MAC2008);
> > +			write_32bit_cp1_register(CP1_STATUS, fcsr0);
> > +			fcsr0 = read_32bit_cp1_register(CP1_STATUS);
> > +
> > +			fcsr1 = fcsr | FPU_CSR_ABS2008 | FPU_CSR_NAN2008;
> > +			write_32bit_cp1_register(CP1_STATUS, fcsr1);
> > +			fcsr1 = read_32bit_cp1_register(CP1_STATUS);
> > +
> > +			write_32bit_cp1_register(CP1_STATUS, fcsr);
> > +
> > +			if (c->isa_level & (MIPS_CPU_ISA_M32R2 | MIPS_CPU_ISA_M64R2)) {
> > +				/*
> > +				 * The bit for MAC2008 might be reused by R6 in future,
> > +				 * so we only test for R2-R5.
> > +				 */
> 
>  Umm, this has formatting issues with lines extending beyond column #80.

I've fixed it while appling.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]