On 10/30/24 09:34, Mark Brown wrote:
We don't actually test SIGILL generation for CMPBR since the need to
branch makes it a pain to generate and the SIGILL detection would be
unreliable anyway. Since this should be very unusual we provide a stub
function rather than supporting a missing function.
The sigill functions aren't well sorted in the file so the ordering is a
bit random.
This is talking about the one that isn't implemented. Can you add
a sentence or two about the ones that this patch adds?
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/hwcap.c | 273 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 271 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/hwcap.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/hwcap.c
index
f2d6007a2b983eba77a880ec7e614396a6cb1377..beb380bc09b0d07269a85a60e5d2977367740473
100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/hwcap.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi/hwcap.c
@@ -46,6 +46,12 @@ static void atomics_sigill(void)
asm volatile(".inst 0xb82003ff" : : : );
}
+static void cmpbr_sigill(void)
+{
+ /* Not implemented, too complicated and unreliable anyway */
+}
+
You anticpated "not used" messages looks like. I see that
this gets called - thanks.
Looks good to me. With the change to change log
Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan <sk...@linuxfoundation.org>
thanks,
-- Shuah
