On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 03:54:48PM +0000, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: > > This patch fixes something, I think it should > > a) be clear in the commit message what is fixed > > b) be tagged for stable (though that can always be done > > retrospectively) > > If you agree, I am going to submit v2 of the series, that would fully > address these concerns. > > Additionally, it seems to me that a new round of testing that tests > involved code paths under various scenarios would be appropriate > and I am going to do that. awesome, thanks! > > Note: thats the one in fpux_emu(), not fpu_emu() which this patch > > modifies. > > Yes, my bad, wanting to respond as quickly as possible, I inserted > the segment from fpux_emu(), not fpu_emu() as I should have. > > By the way, and not related to this patch, I see only 4 (out of 5) > exceptions are handled in fpux_emu() case (division-by-zero is not > handled), I presume this is fine (probably division-by-zero not > needed), isn't it? Yeh I just spotted that too. I agree that it only seems to be division instructions (fdiv_op, frsqrt_op, and frecip_op) that need it, which are all handled in fpu_emu(), so it should be fine as is. > > I truly appreciate your analysis and help. No problem Cheers James
