[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YZeF4JjWIcTMtaaT@osiris>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 12:09:20 +0100
From: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Ilie Halip <ilie.halip@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Mete Durlu <meted@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/test_unwind: use raw opcode instead of invalid
instruction
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:57:05AM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > > > > - " mvcl %%r1,%%r1\n"
> > > > > + " .insn e,0x0e11\n" /* mvcl %%r1,%%r1" */
> >
> > Sorry, I disagree with this. As you said above rr would be the correct
> > format for this instruction. If we go for the e format then we should
> > also use an instruction with e format.
> > Which in this case would simply be an illegal opcode, which would be
> > sufficient for what this code is good for: ".insn e,0x0000".
>
> Why not simply use .short then?
.short bypasses all sanity checks while .insn does not, so I think
that should be preferred. But I don't care too much.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists