[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 03/20] target/ppc: Substitute msr_pr macro with new M_MSR_PR

From: Víctor Colombo
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/20] target/ppc: Substitute msr_pr macro with new M_MSR_PR macro
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:00:24 -0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0

Hello everyone! Thanks Zoltan and Richard for your kind reviews!

On 26/04/2022 18:29, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 4/22/22 11:54, Víctor Colombo wrote:
Suggested-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Víctor Colombo <victor.colombo@eldorado.org.br>
  hw/ppc/pegasos2.c        |  2 +-
  hw/ppc/spapr.c           |  2 +-
  target/ppc/cpu.h         |  3 ++-
  target/ppc/cpu_init.c    |  4 ++--
  target/ppc/excp_helper.c |  6 +++---
  target/ppc/mem_helper.c  |  4 ++--
  target/ppc/mmu-radix64.c |  4 ++--
  target/ppc/mmu_common.c  | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
  8 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/ppc/pegasos2.c b/hw/ppc/pegasos2.c
index 56bf203dfd..27ed54a71d 100644
--- a/hw/ppc/pegasos2.c
+++ b/hw/ppc/pegasos2.c
@@ -461,7 +461,7 @@ static void pegasos2_hypercall(PPCVirtualHypervisor *vhyp, PowerPCCPU *cpu)
      /* The TCG path should also be holding the BQL at this point */

-    if (msr_pr) {
+    if (env->msr & M_MSR_PR) {

I'm not sure I'm keen on the M_ prefix, but I'll defer to Cedric or Daniel if they're ok
with it.

In general there are inconsistencies with the use of MSR_PR (1 vs 1ull), which makes it tempting to replace MSR_PR the bit number with MSR_PR the mask and leave off the M_ prefix.  It's somewhat easy for MSR_PR, since missed conversions will certainly result in compiler warnings for out-of-range shift (the same would not be true with bits 0-6, LE
through EP). >
Another possibility would be to use hw/registerfields.h.  Missed conversions are missing symbol errors.  You'd write FIELD_EX64(env->msr, MSR, PR) in cases like this and R_MSR_PR_MASK in cases like cpu_init.c.  It's more verbose for single bits like this, but
much easier to work with multi-bit fields like MSR.TS.

Thanks for your ideas! I think I'll go with this second one. It'll allow
to remove the !!(val) occurrences that I introduced in this series, so
the code quality will probably be improved.

It'll also be a 'safer' change that will require less rework on other
parts that I didn't intend to touch in this patch series.

I''l work on it!


Víctor Cora Colombo
Instituto de Pesquisas ELDORADO
Aviso Legal - Disclaimer <https://www.eldorado.org.br/disclaimer.html>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]