On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 12:51:08PM +0200, Magnus Kulke wrote:
> In c901905 rflags have been removed from `x86_decode`, but there were
> some leftovers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Magnus Kulke <magnusku...@linux.microsoft.com>

The code looks good -- it is doing what c901905ea670 did.

You can add an extra tag for ease of backporting:

Fixes: c901905ea670 ("target/i386/emulate: remove flags_mask")

Two nits:

The subject prefix. The majority of the patches start with
"target/i386", but I see ones start with "i386", too, so perhaps this is
not a big deal.

The length of the commit hash in the commit message should be longer.
Linux kernel uses 12 characters. Looking at some recent commits in the
QEMU tree, their commti hash length goes from 11 to 14.

Assuming you've built and tested this patch and with the minor issues
fixed:

Reviewed-by: Wei Liu <wei....@kernel.org>

> ---
>  target/i386/emulate/x86_decode.c | 17 ++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/target/i386/emulate/x86_decode.c 
> b/target/i386/emulate/x86_decode.c
> index 7fee219687..7efa2f570e 100644
> --- a/target/i386/emulate/x86_decode.c
> +++ b/target/i386/emulate/x86_decode.c
> @@ -1408,7 +1408,7 @@ struct decode_tbl _2op_inst[] = {
>  };
>  
>  struct decode_x87_tbl invl_inst_x87 = {0x0, 0, 0, 0, 0, false, false, NULL,
> -                                       NULL, decode_invalid, 0};
> +                                       NULL, decode_invalid};
>  
>  struct decode_x87_tbl _x87_inst[] = {
>      {0xd8, 0, 3, X86_DECODE_CMD_FADD, 10, false, false,
> @@ -1456,8 +1456,7 @@ struct decode_x87_tbl _x87_inst[] = {
>       decode_x87_modrm_st0, NULL, decode_d9_4},
>      {0xd9, 4, 0, X86_DECODE_CMD_INVL, 4, false, false,
>       decode_x87_modrm_bytep, NULL, NULL},
> -    {0xd9, 5, 3, X86_DECODE_CMD_FLDxx, 10, false, false, NULL, NULL, NULL,
> -     RFLAGS_MASK_NONE},
> +    {0xd9, 5, 3, X86_DECODE_CMD_FLDxx, 10, false, false, NULL, NULL, NULL},
>      {0xd9, 5, 0, X86_DECODE_CMD_FLDCW, 2, false, false,
>       decode_x87_modrm_bytep, NULL, NULL},
>  
> @@ -1478,20 +1477,17 @@ struct decode_x87_tbl _x87_inst[] = {
>       decode_x87_modrm_st0, NULL},
>      {0xda, 3, 3, X86_DECODE_CMD_FCMOV, 10, false, false, 
> decode_x87_modrm_st0,
>       decode_x87_modrm_st0, NULL},
> -    {0xda, 4, 3, X86_DECODE_CMD_INVL, 10, false, false, NULL, NULL, NULL,
> -     RFLAGS_MASK_NONE},
> +    {0xda, 4, 3, X86_DECODE_CMD_INVL, 10, false, false, NULL, NULL, NULL},
>      {0xda, 4, 0, X86_DECODE_CMD_FSUB, 4, false, false, decode_x87_modrm_st0,
>       decode_x87_modrm_intp, NULL},
>      {0xda, 5, 3, X86_DECODE_CMD_FUCOM, 10, false, true, decode_x87_modrm_st0,
>       decode_decode_x87_modrm_st0, NULL},
>      {0xda, 5, 0, X86_DECODE_CMD_FSUB, 4, true, false, decode_x87_modrm_st0,
>       decode_x87_modrm_intp, NULL},
> -    {0xda, 6, 3, X86_DECODE_CMD_INVL, 10, false, false, NULL, NULL, NULL,
> -     RFLAGS_MASK_NONE},
> +    {0xda, 6, 3, X86_DECODE_CMD_INVL, 10, false, false, NULL, NULL, NULL},
>      {0xda, 6, 0, X86_DECODE_CMD_FDIV, 4, false, false, decode_x87_modrm_st0,
>       decode_x87_modrm_intp, NULL},
> -    {0xda, 7, 3, X86_DECODE_CMD_INVL, 10, false, false, NULL, NULL, NULL,
> -     RFLAGS_MASK_NONE},
> +    {0xda, 7, 3, X86_DECODE_CMD_INVL, 10, false, false, NULL, NULL, NULL},
>      {0xda, 7, 0, X86_DECODE_CMD_FDIV, 4, true, false, decode_x87_modrm_st0,
>       decode_x87_modrm_intp, NULL},
>  
> @@ -1511,8 +1507,7 @@ struct decode_x87_tbl _x87_inst[] = {
>       decode_x87_modrm_intp, NULL, NULL},
>      {0xdb, 4, 3, X86_DECODE_CMD_INVL, 10, false, false, NULL, NULL,
>       decode_db_4},
> -    {0xdb, 4, 0, X86_DECODE_CMD_INVL, 10, false, false, NULL, NULL, NULL,
> -     RFLAGS_MASK_NONE},
> +    {0xdb, 4, 0, X86_DECODE_CMD_INVL, 10, false, false, NULL, NULL, NULL},
>      {0xdb, 5, 3, X86_DECODE_CMD_FUCOMI, 10, false, false,
>       decode_x87_modrm_st0, decode_x87_modrm_st0, NULL},
>      {0xdb, 5, 0, X86_DECODE_CMD_FLD, 10, false, false,
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

Reply via email to