[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vc=AvArhekQSufNA+0OsxnsQikmignNt7=+h_t5=Ks_6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 12:22:34 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] scripts/decodecode: Decode 32-bit code correctly
on x86_64
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 12:17 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 11:59:34AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > It works, but... The question here is why the script behaviour depends
> > so much on the architecture in question (by environment). ARM stuff is
> > using traditional ARCH (and that's what I have expected to work),
> > while x86 has a set of other variables.
> > So, I have to rephrase the commit message then and do actually an
> > alias when ARCH is set in a certain way, Would it be better?
>
> No, I have no clue what you're trying to accomplish. You wanted to
> supply ARCH when decoding a 32-bit oops because you expected ARCH to
> work...?
Yes.
> AFLAGS has always been there, ARM folks added ARCH AFAIR. Also, you need
> AFLAGS to compile the snippet in the correct bitsize.
>
> And there's a usage note at the beginning of the script and I always
> read it to make sure I'm using it right.
>
> So what's the problem again?
Inconsistency.
For the ARM we have to provide ARCH, for x86 a variety of all the flags.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists