Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760144AbYARBOl (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:14:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757472AbYARBOb (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:14:31 -0500 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.180]:60317 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757515AbYARBOa (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:14:30 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=kRSxjYMLRCkgVvHkK5W8FchPRYdOXU6ox6mTrLlrfld6A3SMD75cLVDFrBK9IAENYUoE2Bo8xQ1IBFiJfSi/CdHyfW38engSqGmkQCBw6BfFX9Ac3kBzemXwTWGgHFY23Z+v7DkYob/RyYQenBcUETu0BcbNJSfIDfVH6rOPcwc= Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Use v8086_mode helper, trivial unification From: Harvey Harrison To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Ingo Molnar , LKML , Thomas Gleixner In-Reply-To: <478FF9F3.9030604@zytor.com> References: <1200611078.5724.46.camel@brick> <478FDE76.3070309@zytor.com> <1200612389.5724.63.camel@brick> <478FF9F3.9030604@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:14:29 -0800 Message-Id: <1200618869.5724.83.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2172 Lines: 68 On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 19:59 -0500, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Harvey Harrison wrote: > > > > Sorry, missed that detail in ptrace.h, I notice now. > > > > Is there some better way this could be organized, would the following > > be an improvement, as opposed to two long ifdef sections? > > > > Patch will follow if you think it's a good idea. > > It is actually quite a bit easier to read. I'll send along a patch along soon, any thoughts on how to order it in the file? > > > > > static inline unsigned long stack_pointer(struct pt_regs *regs) > > { > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 > > return (unsigned long)regs; > > #else > > return regs->sp; > > #endif > > } > > This one is kind of strange. In particular, the 32-bit definition isn't > exactly what one would expect. It makes me concerned that it actually > refers to two different kinds of stack pointers? This tripped up the kprobes unification as well, see the stack_addr() helper that was introduced there. Would be good to figure this out and put a big fat comment on it. kprobes.c #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 #define stack_addr(regs) ((unsigned long *)regs->sp) #else /* * "®s->sp" looks wrong, but it's correct for x86_32. x86_32 CPUs * don't save the ss and esp registers if the CPU is already in kernel * mode when it traps. So for kprobes, regs->sp and regs->ss are not * the [nonexistent] saved stack pointer and ss register, but rather * the top 8 bytes of the pre-int3 stack. So ®s->sp happens to * point to the top of the pre-int3 stack. */ #define stack_addr(regs) ((unsigned long *)®s->sp) #endif > > /* still need a define here, as one is long and one is unsigned long. > > * but this is another target for unification I guess. */ > > #define regs_return_value(regs) ((regs)->ax) > > Indeed... I think this comes out of Roland's patches unifying some names eip/rip, eax/rax, etc. CC'd in case he felt like more work ;-) Harvey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/