On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 06:46:12AM +0000, David Long wrote: > On 11/19/14 09:55, David Long wrote: > > On 11/19/14 06:25, Will Deacon wrote: > >> I was thinking of the magic hex numbers in the kprobes decode tables, > >> which > >> seem to correspond directly to the instruction classes described in > >> insn.c > >> > >> Keeping the actual emulation code separate makes sense. > >> > > Of course that follows the model of the much more complex arm32 > > kprobes/uprobes decoding. I can have a go at replacing it with insn.c > > calls. > > While the existing aarch64_get_insn_class() function in insn.c is > somewhat useful here what is really needed is a function that identifies > if an instruction uses the pc (branch, load literal, load address). > Such instructions cannot be arbitrarily moved around in isolation, and > do not fall neatly into the existing "class"es. I've written a simple > aarch64_insn_uses_pc() function to add to insn.c but I'd like to hear > agreement that this is a good approach before sending out the patch. > Thoughts?
I'm perfectly happy with extending insn.c with extra helpers if they're useful to you. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
