(resending this email in case the first one got caught in your spam
filter. sorry.)
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 06:25:26PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 04:59:10PM +0100, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 16,
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 04:59:10PM +0100, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:19:31PM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Is a BUG_ON justifiable here? Is there not a nicer way to fail?
> >>
> >> In general, it'd be
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:19:31PM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
>> >
>> > Is a BUG_ON justifiable here? Is there not a nicer way to fail?
>>
>> In general, it'd be nice if we returned something like -EINVAL and
>> have all callers handle
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:19:31PM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:04:50PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 07:24:59AM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
> [...]
> > > +enum aarch64_insn_register {
> > > + AARCH64_INSN_REG_0 = 0,
> > > + AARCH64_INSN_REG_1 = 1,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:19:31PM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:04:50PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 07:24:59AM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
[...]
+enum aarch64_insn_register {
+ AARCH64_INSN_REG_0 = 0,
+ AARCH64_INSN_REG_1 = 1,
+
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:19:31PM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
Is a BUG_ON justifiable here? Is there not a nicer way to fail?
In general, it'd be nice if we returned something like -EINVAL and
have all callers handle
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 04:59:10PM +0100, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:19:31PM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
Is a BUG_ON justifiable here? Is there not a nicer way to fail?
In general, it'd be
(resending this email in case the first one got caught in your spam
filter. sorry.)
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 06:25:26PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 04:59:10PM +0100, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
On
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:04:50PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 07:24:59AM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
[...]
> > +enum aarch64_insn_register {
> > + AARCH64_INSN_REG_0 = 0,
> > + AARCH64_INSN_REG_1 = 1,
> > + AARCH64_INSN_REG_2 = 2,
> > + AARCH64_INSN_REG_3 = 3,
>
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 07:24:59AM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
> Introduce function to generate compare & branch (immediate)
> instructions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zi Shen Lim
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h | 57
> arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c | 86
>
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 07:24:59AM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
Introduce function to generate compare branch (immediate)
instructions.
Signed-off-by: Zi Shen Lim zlim@gmail.com
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h | 57
arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c | 86
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:04:50PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 07:24:59AM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
[...]
+enum aarch64_insn_register {
+ AARCH64_INSN_REG_0 = 0,
+ AARCH64_INSN_REG_1 = 1,
+ AARCH64_INSN_REG_2 = 2,
+ AARCH64_INSN_REG_3 = 3,
+
Introduce function to generate compare & branch (immediate)
instructions.
Signed-off-by: Zi Shen Lim
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h | 57
arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c | 86 ---
2 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 5
Introduce function to generate compare branch (immediate)
instructions.
Signed-off-by: Zi Shen Lim zlim@gmail.com
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h | 57
arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c | 86 ---
2 files changed, 138
14 matches
Mail list logo
