Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/sstep: Add emulation support for‘setb’ instruction

Michael Ellerman wrote:

"Naveen N. Rao" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Michael Ellerman wrote:

quoted

"Naveen N. Rao" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Daniel Axtens wrote:

quoted

Sathvika Vasireddy [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

This adds emulation support for the following instruction:
   * Set Boolean (setb)

Signed-off-by: Sathvika Vasireddy <redacted>

...

quoted

quoted

If you do end up respinning the patch, I think it would be good to make
the maths a bit clearer. I think it works because a left shift of 2 is
the same as multiplying by 4, but it would be easier to follow if you
used a temporary variable for btf.

Indeed. I wonder if it is better to follow the ISA itself. Per the ISA, 
the bit we are interested in is:
	4 x BFA + 32

So, if we use that along with the PPC_BIT() macro, we get:
	if (regs->ccr & PPC_BIT(ra + 32))

Use of PPC_BIT risks annoying your maintainer :)

Uh oh... that isn't good :)

I looked up previous discussions and I think I now understand why you 
don't prefer it.

Hah, I'd forgotten I'd written (ranted :D) about this in the past.

quoted

But, I feel it helps make it easy to follow the code when referring to 
the ISA.

That's true. But I think that's much much less common than people
reading the code in isolation.

I thought that isn't so for at least the instruction emulation 
infrastructure...

And ultimately it doesn't matter if the code (appears to) match the ISA,
it matters that the code works. My worry is that too much use of those
type of macros obscures what's actually happening.

... but, I agree on the above point. I can see why it is better to keep 
it simple.

I also see precedence for what both you and Segher are suggesting in the 
existing code in sstep.c

quoted

I'm wondering if it is just the name you dislike and if so, 
does it make sense to rename PPC_BIT() to something else? We have 
BIT_ULL(), so perhaps BIT_MSB_ULL() or MSB_BIT_ULL()?

The name is part of it. But I don't really like BIT_ULL() either, it
hides in a macro something that could just be there in front of you
ie. (1ull << x).


For this case of setb, I think I'd go with something like below. It
doesn't exactly match the ISA, but I think there's minimal obfuscation
of what's actually going on.

    	// ra is now bfa
	ra = (ra >> 2);

	// Extract 4-bit CR field
	val = regs->ccr >> (CR0_SHIFT - 4 * ra);

	if (val & 8)
		op->val = -1;
	else if (val & 4)
		op->val = 1;
	else
		op->val = 0;


If anything could use a macro it would be the 8 and 4, eg. CR_LT, CR_GT.

Of course that's probably got a bug in it, because I just wrote it by
eye and it's 11:28 pm :)

LGTM, thanks. I'll let Sathvika decide on which variant she wants to go 
with for v2 :)


- Naveen