From: "Hu, Lin1" <lin1.hu@intel.com>
To: "Beulich, Jan" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: "binutils@sourceware.org" <binutils@sourceware.org>,
"Lu, Hongjiu" <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Support Intel USER_MSR
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 02:01:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <SJ0PR11MB5940B107B703A713D5B1E7E9A6DEA@SJ0PR11MB5940.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5c3a3d73-0f73-1941-ab31-6ad95050210e@suse.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 8:02 PM
> To: Hu, Lin1 <lin1.hu@intel.com>
> Cc: binutils@sourceware.org; Lu, Hongjiu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support Intel USER_MSR
>
> On 24.10.2023 12:01, Hu, Lin1 wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 4:56 PM
> >>
> >> On 24.10.2023 10:38, Hu, Lin1 wrote:
> >>> I've thought of it so far is I can use a Fixup function like
> >>>
> >>> static bool
> >>> uwrmsr_Fixup (instr_info *ins, int bytemode, int sizeflag) {
> >>> if (bytemode == d_mode)
> >>> {
> >>> if (OP_Skip_MODRM (ins, 0, sizeflag))
> >>> {
> >>> if (OP_I (ins, bytemode, sizeflag))
> >>> {
> >>> ins->codep--;
> >>> }
> >>> return true;
> >>> }
> >>> }
> >>> return false;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> Then the uwrmsr's unit will be { "uwrmsr", { { uwrmsr_Fixup,
> d_mode },
> >> Rq }, 0 }.
> >>> What‘s your opinion?
> >>
> >> Hmm, not very nice, but I can't exclude it simply won't get any better.
> >> My desire was for there to not be any new fixup function, and for
> >> OP_Skip_MODRM to be used directly in the table entry. (In any event,
> >> if you really need to keep this new function, please combine the
> >> three if()-s into a single one, helping readability quite a bit.
> >>
> >
> > I have another idea, can I have a new function like
> >
> > OP_back_codep(...)
> > {
> > Ins->codep--;
> > Return true;
> > }
> >
> > So the uwrmsr's unit will be { "uwrmsr", { Skip_MODRM, Id, Back_Codep, Rq },
> 0 }.
>
> Well, the main thing I dislike is the decrementing of codep, no matter where it's
> put. In case you don't think you can get away without, I guess I'll try afterwards,
> aiming at an incremental change then.
>
I have another one in mind at the moment. Can I have a bool variable in instr_info,
@@ -221,6 +221,9 @@ struct instr_info
/* Record whether EVEX masking is used incorrectly. */
bool illegal_masking;
+ /* Record whether the modrm byte has been skipped. */
+ bool has_skipped_modrm.
+
unsigned char op_ad;
And the Skip mod/rm byte pattern will be
@@ -11668,7 +11658,11 @@ OP_Skip_MODRM (instr_info *ins, int bytemode ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
/* Skip mod/rm byte. */
MODRM_CHECK;
- ins->codep++;
+ if (!ins->has_skipped_modrm)
+ {
+ ins->codep++;
+ ins->has_skipped_modrm = true;
+ }
return true;
}
.
This change will be applied to all other similar sections (include OP_E).
So the uwrmsr's unit will be { "uwrmsr", { Skip_MODRM, Id, Rq }, 0 }, because the codep won't increasing in Rq, I don't need the decrementing of codep.
> Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-25 2:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-10 7:24 Hu, Lin1
2023-10-16 12:11 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-18 7:51 ` Hu, Lin1
2023-10-19 8:36 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-24 8:38 ` Hu, Lin1
2023-10-24 8:55 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-24 10:01 ` Hu, Lin1
2023-10-24 12:02 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-25 2:01 ` Hu, Lin1 [this message]
2023-10-25 8:48 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-25 9:11 ` [PATCH][v3] " Hu, Lin1
2023-10-25 11:43 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-26 6:14 ` Hu, Lin1
2023-10-26 6:21 ` [PATCH][v4] " Hu, Lin1
2023-10-26 8:31 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-26 9:08 ` Hu, Lin1
2023-10-26 9:25 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-26 10:26 ` Hu, Lin1
2023-10-27 9:00 ` [PATCH][v5] " Hu, Lin1
2023-10-27 13:36 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-30 5:50 ` Hu, Lin1
2023-10-30 8:31 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-31 1:43 ` Hu, Lin1
2023-10-31 2:14 ` [PATCH][v6] " Hu, Lin1
2023-10-31 8:03 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-31 8:35 ` Hu, Lin1
2023-11-14 7:14 ` Jan Beulich
2023-11-15 3:09 ` Hu, Lin1
2023-11-15 3:34 ` Jiang, Haochen
2023-11-15 7:36 ` Jan Beulich
2023-11-15 7:41 ` Jiang, Haochen
2023-11-15 7:48 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=SJ0PR11MB5940B107B703A713D5B1E7E9A6DEA@SJ0PR11MB5940.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--to=lin1.hu@intel.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=hongjiu.lu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).