Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] LoongArch: Move three functions from kprobes.c to
 inst.h
To:     Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
        WANG Xuerui <kernel@xen0n.name>
References: <1681293901-24918-1-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
 <1681293901-24918-2-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
 <6d06f74cb610b0012ff367fd1a7ac4aba027e304.camel@xry111.site>
Cc:     loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        loongson-kernel@lists.loongnix.cn
From:   Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
Message-ID: <c69eb8f4-3054-17f2-f0b4-860208509ca6@loongson.cn>
Date:   Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:55:03 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux mips64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6d06f74cb610b0012ff367fd1a7ac4aba027e304.camel@xry111.site>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 04/12/2023 06:39 PM, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-04-12 at 18:04 +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
>> +static inline bool insns_not_supported(union loongarch_instruction insn)
>
> This function seems long enough (to me) not to use "static inline".
> Note that most part of this function belongs to a cold path, and IMO
> it's bad to inline a cold path into every caller.

OK, I will move the three functions from kprobes.c to inst.c.

>
>> +{
>> +       switch (insn.reg2i14_format.opcode) {
>> +       case llw_op:
>> +       case lld_op:
>> +       case scw_op:
>> +       case scd_op:
>> +               pr_notice("kprobe: ll and sc instructions are not supported\n");
>> +               return true;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       switch (insn.reg1i21_format.opcode) {
>> +       case bceqz_op:
>> +               pr_notice("kprobe: bceqz and bcnez instructions are not supported\n");
>> +               return true;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline bool insns_need_simulation(union loongarch_instruction insn)
>> +{
>> +       if (is_pc_ins(&insn))
>> +               return true;
>> +
>> +       if (is_branch_ins(&insn))
>> +               return true;
>> +
>> +       return false;
>
> I'd write "return is_pc_ins(&insn) || is_branch_ins(&insn);" here, but
> there is no behavioral difference anyway.

I prefer leave it as it is.

Thanks,
Tiezhu