Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 9/9] s390x: skrf: Fix tprot assembly

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 9/22/21 11:34 AM, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:18:11 +0000
> Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> It's a base + displacement address so we need to address it via 0(%[addr]).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> but see comment below
> 
>> ---
>>  s390x/skrf.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/s390x/skrf.c b/s390x/skrf.c
>> index 8ca7588c..84fb762c 100644
>> --- a/s390x/skrf.c
>> +++ b/s390x/skrf.c
>> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static void test_tprot(void)
>>  {
>>  	report_prefix_push("tprot");
>>  	expect_pgm_int();
>> -	asm volatile("tprot	%[addr],0xf0(0)\n"
>> +	asm volatile("tprot	0(%[addr]),0xf0(0)\n"
> 
> I think the displacement defaults to 0 if not specified?
> 
> did you get a warning, or why are you changing this now?

It fixes one of the ~18 clang warnings and making it explicit directly
tells you it's a B+D instruction i.e. it looks cleaner to me.

> 
>>  		     : : [addr] "a" (pagebuf) : );
>>  	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
>>  	report_prefix_pop();
> 




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux