Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/5] ARM: kprobes-test: use <asm/opcodes.h> for instruction accesses | From | "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <> | Date | Fri, 03 Jan 2014 15:53:06 +0000 |
| |
On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 18:19 +0200, Taras Kondratiuk wrote: > From: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> > > Ensure we read instructions in the correct endian-ness by using > the <asm/opcodes.h> helper to transform them as necessary. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> > [taras.kondratiuk@linaro.org: fix next_instruction() function] > Signed-off-by: Taras Kondratiuk <taras.kondratiuk@linaro.org> > ---
Apart from the spurious line removal (see below) then:
Acked-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@linaro.org>
and you can include an ACK for the other patches in this series too.
Thanks.
> arch/arm/kernel/kprobes-test.c | 12 ++++++------ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/kprobes-test.c b/arch/arm/kernel/kprobes-test.c > index 0cd63d0..96e3dbc 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/kprobes-test.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/kprobes-test.c > @@ -1329,7 +1329,8 @@ static void test_case_failed(const char *message) > static unsigned long next_instruction(unsigned long pc) > { > #ifdef CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL > - if ((pc & 1) && !is_wide_instruction(*(u16 *)(pc - 1))) > + if ((pc & 1) && > + !is_wide_instruction(__mem_to_opcode_thumb16(*(u16 *)(pc - 1)))) > return pc + 2; > else > #endif > @@ -1374,13 +1375,13 @@ static uintptr_t __used kprobes_test_case_start(const char *title, void *stack) > > if (test_case_is_thumb) { > u16 *p = (u16 *)(test_code & ~1); > - current_instruction = p[0]; > + current_instruction = __mem_to_opcode_thumb16(p[0]); > if (is_wide_instruction(current_instruction)) { > - current_instruction <<= 16; > - current_instruction |= p[1]; > + u16 instr2 = __mem_to_opcode_thumb16(p[1]); > + current_instruction = __opcode_thumb32_compose(current_instruction, instr2); > } > } else { > - current_instruction = *(u32 *)test_code; > + current_instruction = __mem_to_opcode_arm(*(u32 *)test_code); > } > > if (current_title[0] == '.') > @@ -1593,7 +1594,6 @@ static int run_test_cases(void (*tests)(void), const union decode_item *table) > return 0; > } > > -
I know the above blank line isn't needed but I believe the convention is to avoid doing unrelated white-space clean-ups in patches.
> static int __init run_all_tests(void) > { > int ret = 0;
| |