Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 30 Mar 2021 10:31:49 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Jianlin Lv <Jianlin.Lv@arm.com>
Cc:     bpf@vger.kernel.org, zlim.lnx@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
        kafai@fb.com, songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com,
        john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, iecedge@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: arm64: Redefine MOV consistent with arch
 insn
Message-ID: <20210330093149.GA5281@willie-the-truck>
References: <20210330074235.525747-1-Jianlin.Lv@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210330074235.525747-1-Jianlin.Lv@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 03:42:35PM +0800, Jianlin Lv wrote:
> A64_MOV is currently mapped to Add Instruction. Architecturally MOV
> (register) is an alias of ORR (shifted register) and MOV (to or from SP)
> is an alias of ADD (immediate).
> This patch redefines A64_MOV and uses existing functionality
> aarch64_insn_gen_move_reg() in insn.c to encode MOV (register) instruction.
> For moving between register and stack pointer, rename macro to A64_MOV_SP.

What does this gain us? There's no requirement for a BPF "MOV" to match an
arm64 architectural "MOV", so what's the up-side of aligning them like this?

Cheers,

Will