Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:44:40 -0700 | From | Ricardo Neri <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 02/13] x86/insn-eval: Compute linear address in several utility functions |
| |
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 09:51:08AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > + /* > > + * -EDOM means that we must ignore the address_offset. In such a case, > > + * in 64-bit mode the effective address relative to the RIP of the > > + * following instruction. > > + */ > > + if (*regoff == -EDOM) { > > + if (user_64bit_mode(regs)) > > + tmp = (long)regs->ip + insn->length; > > + else > > + tmp = 0; > > + } else if (*regoff < 0) { > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } else { > > + tmp = (long)regs_get_register(regs, *regoff); > > + } > > > + else > > + indx = (long)regs_get_register(regs, indx_offset); > > This and subsequent patches include a disgustly insane amount of type casts - why? > > For example here 'tmp' is 'long', while regs_get_register() returns > 'unsigned long', but no type cast is necessary for that. > > > + ret = get_eff_addr_modrm(insn, regs, &addr_offset, > > + &eff_addr);
One of the goals of this series is to have the ability to compute 16-bit, 32-bit and 64-bit addresses. I put lost of casts, between signed and unsigned types, between 64-bit and 32-bit and 16-bit casts. After seeing your comment I have gone through the code and I have removed most of the casts. Instead I will use masks. I will also inspect the resulting assembly code to make sure the arithmetic is performed in the address size pertinent to each case.
> > Also, please don't break lines slightly longer than 80 cols just to pacify > checkpatch (and this holds for other patches as well) - the cure is worse than the > illness!
I will look into these two cases and reorganize the code.
Thanks and BR, Ricardo
| |