[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZPjLSHG7JToLWvmT@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 19:56:08 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Shubham Bansal <illusionist.neo@...il.com>,
Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 6/8] arm32, bpf: add support for 64 bit division
instruction
On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 09:29:19AM +0000, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05 2023, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 09:06:19PM +0000, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
> Actually, there can also be a situation where rd[1] != ARM_R0 && rd[1] != ARM_R2,
> so should I do it like:
>
> if (rd[1] != ARM_R0 && rd[1] != ARM_R2) {
> emit(ARM_POP(BIT(ARM_R0) | BIT(ARM_R1)), ctx);
> emit(ARM_POP(BIT(ARM_R2) | BIT(ARM_R3)), ctx);
> } else if (rd[1] != ARM_R0) {
> emit(ARM_POP(BIT(ARM_R0) | BIT(ARM_R1)), ctx);
> emit(ARM_ADD_I(ARM_SP, ARM_SP, 8), ctx);
> } else if (rd[1] != ARM_R2) {
> emit(ARM_ADD_I(ARM_SP, ARM_SP, 8), ctx);
> emit(ARM_POP(BIT(ARM_R2) | BIT(ARM_R3)), ctx);
> } else {
> emit(ARM_ADD_I(ARM_SP, ARM_SP, 16), ctx);
> }
Are you sure all four states are possible?
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists