Hi Julien, On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:47:23AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >Hi Peng, > >On 21/09/15 08:07, Peng Fan wrote: >> To ARM64, "if ( hsr.ec >= 0x10 ) return 1;" is ok for unconditional >> check, but to ARM32, we need to use 'hsr.ec >> 30' to check. > >hsr.ec is encoded on 5 bits, therefore the shift you suggest is wrong. >Maybe you wanted to use (hsr.ec >> 4)? Thanks for correcting me. 0x10 can handle hsr.ec >> 4. My bad, this patch is wrong.
Regards, Peng. > >Although, can you explain why you need a different check for ARM32? > >Regards, > >> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng....@freescale.com> >> Cc: Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> >> Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabell...@citrix.com> >> Cc: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@citrix.com> >> --- >> xen/arch/arm/traps.c | 5 +++++ >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/traps.c b/xen/arch/arm/traps.c >> index 9d2bd6a..2e2b1f2 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/arm/traps.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/traps.c >> @@ -1531,8 +1531,13 @@ static int check_conditional_instr(struct >> cpu_user_regs *regs, >> int cond; >> >> /* Unconditional Exception classes */ >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_64 >> if ( hsr.ec >= 0x10 ) >> return 1; >> +#else >> + if ( hsr.ec >> 30 ) >> + return 1; >> +#endif >> >> /* Check for valid condition in hsr */ >> cond = hsr.cond.ccvalid ? hsr.cond.cc : -1; >> > > >-- >Julien Grall -- _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
