> Right, it's not needed on 4xx/BookE, but I didn't think it worth > optimizing at this point, since it will split the code into 4xx/BookE > and classic versions. Let's get it working solid first.
Yup, it's just that I spotted it while reading the code. > That's what I originally thought and had in my first version. > However, in the BookE case, we must save at least r3, r4, and r5. > (See data_access: in head_fsl_booke.S.) It isn't clear what the > rules are, and I didn't want to set a trap for when a handler is > added that uses a fourth argument. Ok, this definitely is worth some rework around the edges. For now, I suppose keeping it stable will do. > If you think it's worth it, I could test a version that saves > r3, r4, and r5 and restores the others from ptregs. Don't bother for now. I'll see if we can do things differently later. > > Also, only the system call really cares about -restoring- them. Maybe > > you could stick that in an ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS section in > > DoSyscall pulling them back off the ptregs in the stackframe. > > Another optimization that I'm not convinced is worth the trouble > for this tracing code. I'll try to take a look at it though. > As you say below, it's scary code. Yup. The RESTOREALL case doesn't write the result to the PT_REGS but I'm not yet sure if that's a big issue to do it regardless or not. Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
