On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:43:19PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 01:25:39PM -0500, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > However, unifying all instruction decoding within arch/arm is quite > > the heavy task, and requires agreeing on some canonical API that > > people can live with and it will likely take a long time. I seem to > > recall there were also arguments against unifying kprobe code with > > other instruction decoding, as the kprobe code was also written to > > work highly optimized under certain assumptions, if I understood > > previous comments correctly. > > Yes, I know Rusty had a go. > > What I think may make sense is to unify this and the alignment code. > They're really after the same things, which are: > > - Given an instruction, and register set, calculate the address of the > access, size, number of accesses, and the source/destination registers. > - Update the register set as though the instruction had been executed > by the CPU. > > However, I've changed tack slightly from the above in the last 10 minutes > or so. I'm thinking a little more that we might be able to take what we > already have in alignment.c and provide it with a set of accessors > according to size etc. FWIW, KVM only needs this code for handling complex MMIO instructions, which aren't even generated by recent guest kernels. I'm inclined to suggest removing this emulation code from KVM entirely given that it's likely to bitrot as it is executed less and less often. This doesn't solve the problem of having multiple people doing the same thing, but at least we don't have one extra set of decoding logic for arch/arm/ (even though the code itself is pretty clean). Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
