Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 627E7C433FE for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:12:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46ECF6120A for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:12:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235509AbhKSOPS (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2021 09:15:18 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:9586 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234226AbhKSOPR (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2021 09:15:17 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1AJEBvYZ011289; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:12:13 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=pS0Yy1hic0zPF9YAURlsBeb1gS/RdKDvsx64M/QmQHM=; b=ZkjcLjpeQo9LIvc4mlIcGTmnFSPcMaTuLNRJR49ZOt9Iymxf+efROzIo+ZgkS+m8Qho5 XX1opsWRfphNaRC1IAg2+SSGkNhQUV0UCk2npI+r77etPuqmB7z92zGIRJIwQ/zosrZn HIefOJuKxOkZtSwdPuio6I1uHEMUQipq16cw4OAEYTtLCVNjrAYZ3N5qRU6smmmIDU7c Jb/rBp+G5LNODHn3kykv9XTPTaOLb3qX6l8fux7pTd/MQBr3EfTLmvQ/UBY3fYPu96BB OzieMKl0H/OROgU1j5wWJ1zgjd/WztMZvQwj322Kn63ycN9rUCc8mgiOL/VhNC5LJI1T gw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3cec681u4n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:12:12 +0000 Received: from m0098404.ppops.net (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1AJECC7a012365; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:12:12 GMT Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3cec681u3v-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:12:12 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1AJE85I1005731; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:12:09 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3ca50c1dad-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:12:09 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1AJEC4C233030618 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:12:04 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B68AE05F; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:12:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3F5AE055; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:12:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.171.67.41] (unknown [9.171.67.41]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:12:04 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 15:12:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/test_unwind: use raw opcode instead of invalid instruction Content-Language: en-US To: Heiko Carstens Cc: Nick Desaulniers , Ilie Halip , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vasily Gorbik , Alexander Gordeev , Nathan Chancellor , Mete Durlu , Sven Schnelle , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, Ulrich Weigand References: <20211117174822.3632412-1-ilie.halip@gmail.com> <658a63b5-2d18-2837-9639-75a14c959f73@de.ibm.com> From: Christian Borntraeger In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 6QS122JTGoagEZjrRNzdAxGxWI0CPm6H X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 0IUlFXRtSpr2nUdYvpzmWMahErC0m3O1 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-11-19_09,2021-11-17_01,2020-04-07_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=928 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2111190078 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 19.11.21 um 12:09 schrieb Heiko Carstens: > 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. Heiko, I am fine with ".insn e,0x0000" and the a changed comment that changes "specification exception" to "operation exception". Do you want Ilie to resend or simply fixup?