In message <[email protected]> you wrote: > Michael Neuling <[email protected]> writes: > > >> @@ -263,7 +263,9 @@ long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_stru > >> ret = ptrace_put_reg(child, numReg, freg); > >> } else { > >> flush_fp_to_thread(child); > >> - ((unsigned int *)child->thread.regs)[index] = data; > >> + ((unsigned int *)child->thread.fpr) > >> + [TS_FPRWIDTH * (numReg - PT_FPR0) * 2 + > >> + index % 2] = data; > > > > I think the indexing here should be the same as PEEKUSR_3264. This > > looks better but all this magic indexing makes me want to vomit. > > How about this instead: > > @@ -241,6 +241,7 @@ long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_stru > case PPC_PTRACE_POKEUSR_3264: { > u32 index; > u32 numReg; > + u32 *tmp; > > ret = -EIO; > /* Determine which register the user wants */ > @@ -263,7 +264,8 @@ long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_stru > ret = ptrace_put_reg(child, numReg, freg); > } else { > flush_fp_to_thread(child); > - ((unsigned int *)child->thread.regs)[index] = data; > + tmp = (u32 *)child->thread.fpr[numReg - PT_FPR0]; > + tmp[index % 2] = data;
I do like this approach better (two arrays) but there is no accounting for TS_WIDTH, so I'm not sure it works. We *really* need a test case for this stuff :-) Mikey > ret = 0; > } > break; > > Andreas. > > -- > Andreas Schwab, [email protected] > GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 > "And now for something completely different." > _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
