On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 02:42:27PM +0800, Simon Guo wrote: > I now felt unformatable to use mcrf like: > mcrf 7,0 > > since I cannot 100% confident that compiler will not use CR7 or other > CR# in exit_vmx_ops().
It wasn't clear to me this macro boils down to a function call. You can use CR2,CR3,CR4, but you'll need to save and restore those at the start and end of function then, which is just as nasty. Better is to restructure some code so you don't need that CR field there anymore. > Can we switch back to mfocrf/mtocrf with correct CR0 value? > mfocrf r5,128 > ... > mtocrf 128,r5 Sure, I'm not your boss ;-) It seems a shame to me to have this 12 or whatever cycle delay here, since the whole point of the patch is to make things faster, that's all (but it still is faster, right, you tested it). Segher
