[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e28c4639-00b3-6bf9-6c5e-72e251372cb4@csgroup.eu>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 14:46:22 +0200
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jniethe5@...il.com,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] powerpc: Cleanup use of 'struct ppc_inst'
Hi Michael,
Le 20/05/2021 à 15:50, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> This series is a cleanup of the use of 'struct ppc_inst'.
>
> A confusion is made between internal representation of powerpc
> instructions with 'struct ppc_inst' and in-memory code which is
> and will always be an array of 'unsigned int'.
>
> This series cleans it up.
>
> First patch is fixing detection of missing '__user' flag by sparse
> when using get_user_instr().
>
> Last part of the series does some source code cleanup in
> optprobes, it is put at the ends of this series because of
> clashes with the 'struct ppc_inst' cleanups.
What are your plans about this series ? I fear that the more we wait the more we get additional bad
uses of 'struct ppc_inst'.
There are several people working around places that play with instructions, so I think the sooner it
gets cleaned the better it is. Do you agree ?
Thanks
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists