>>>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:58:44 +0200 (MET DST), "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl> said: macro> I don't think a separate overflow check is needed, even I see macro> how the code can fail for large offsets into XKSEG. How about macro> this patch? Does it work for you? It would not incur macro> unnecessary overhead. macro> diff -up --recursive --new-file linux-mips-2.4.21-pre4-20030505.macro/arch/mips64/mm/tlbex-r4k.S linux-mips-2.4.21-pre4-20030505/arch/mips64/mm/tlbex-r4k.S macro> --- linux-mips-2.4.21-pre4-20030505.macro/arch/mips64/mm/tlbex-r4k.S 2003-04-27 02:56:39.000000000 +0000 macro> +++ linux-mips-2.4.21-pre4-20030505/arch/mips64/mm/tlbex-r4k.S 2003-06-03 12:54:41.000000000 +0000 macro> @@ -73,8 +73,9 @@ macro> * Determine that fault address is within vmalloc range. macro> */ macro> dla \tmp, ekptbl macro> - sltu \tmp, \ptr, \tmp macro> + slt \tmp, \ptr, \tmp macro> beqz \tmp, \not_vmalloc # not vmalloc macro> + nop macro> .endm Thank you for pointing out this. I did not think very much. But you mean "slt \tmp, \tmp, \ptr", don't you? diff -u linux-mips-cvs/arch/mips64/mm/tlbex-r4k.S linux.new/arch/mips64/mm/tlbex-r4k.S --- linux-mips-cvs/arch/mips64/mm/tlbex-r4k.S Mon Apr 28 09:44:54 2003 +++ linux.new/arch/mips64/mm/tlbex-r4k.S Wed Jun 4 09:45:48 2003 @@ -73,8 +73,9 @@ * Determine that fault address is within vmalloc range. */ dla \tmp, ekptbl - sltu \tmp, \ptr, \tmp + slt \tmp, \tmp, \ptr beqz \tmp, \not_vmalloc # not vmalloc + nop .endm --- Atsushi Nemoto
