Subject: [PATCH 4/4] Use generic ARM instruction set condition code checks for kprobes.

From: [email-masked] (Leif Lindholm)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:26:35 +0000

On 12/09/11 18:05, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
>>> Yes, that is functionally equivalent, and what I did in the RFC version,
>>> but it ended up looking messy at the calling point.
>>
>> Ok, then could you route the ARM variant through the wrapper too?
>
> The function Leif added is for checking the condition code in an ARM
> instruction, so it doesn't need a wrapper when used for this.

It doesn't, but...

> The other locations in the kprobes tests get the condition nibble from
> the ITSATE or from thumb conditional branch instructions. In these cases
> the code looks cleaner if the condition is passed as a value between 0x0
> and 0xf, rather than being shift up to bit position 28 where the
> conditional ARM instructions have it encoded.

I did what Will suggested though, and it does make it a bit cleaner. It
also moves the ARM_OPCODE_* testing out of the test_context_cpsr code,
so that all three cases have the probe_should_run setting pretty much
identical.

I'll post the updated set shortly, so you can have a look.

/
        Leif

-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.  Thank you.