[PATCH 2/9] powerpc: Add macros to access floating point registers in thread_struct.

[Kumar Gala]

On Jun 24, 2008, at 5:57 AM, Michael Neuling wrote:

> We are going to change where the floating point registers are stored
> in the thread_struct, so in preparation add some macros to access the
> floating point registers.  Update all code to use these new macros.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <mikey at neuling.org>
> ---
>
> arch/powerpc/kernel/align.c      |    6 ++--
> arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c    |    5 ++-
> arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c     |   14 +++++----
> arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace32.c   |   14 +++++++--
> arch/powerpc/kernel/softemu8xx.c |    4 +-
> arch/powerpc/math-emu/math.c     |   56 ++++++++++++++++++ 
> +--------------------
> include/asm-powerpc/ppc_asm.h    |    5 ++-
> include/asm-powerpc/processor.h  |    3 ++
> 8 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>

> Index: linux-2.6-ozlabs/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-ozlabs.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ linux-2.6-ozlabs/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -218,10 +218,10 @@ static int fpr_get(struct task_struct *t
> 	flush_fp_to_thread(target);
>
> 	BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct thread_struct, fpscr) !=
> -		     offsetof(struct thread_struct, fpr[32]));
> +		     offsetof(struct thread_struct, TS_FPR(32)));
>
> 	return user_regset_copyout(&pos, &count, &kbuf, &ubuf,
> -				   &target->thread.fpr, 0, -1);
> +				   target->thread.fpr, 0, -1);

is there a reason we can drop the '&'? (I'm only look at this as a  
textual diff, not at what the code is trying to do).
>
> }
>
> static int fpr_set(struct task_struct *target, const struct  
> user_regset *regset,
> @@ -231,10 +231,10 @@ static int fpr_set(struct task_struct *t
> 	flush_fp_to_thread(target);
>
> 	BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct thread_struct, fpscr) !=
> -		     offsetof(struct thread_struct, fpr[32]));
> +		     offsetof(struct thread_struct, TS_FPR(32)));
>
> 	return user_regset_copyin(&pos, &count, &kbuf, &ubuf,
> -				  &target->thread.fpr, 0, -1);
> +				  target->thread.fpr, 0, -1);

ditto.
>
> }
>
>
> @@ -728,7 +728,8 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *chi
> 			tmp = ptrace_get_reg(child, (int) index);
> 		} else {
> 			flush_fp_to_thread(child);
> -			tmp = ((unsigned long *)child->thread.fpr)[index - PT_FPR0];
> +			tmp = ((unsigned long *)child->thread.fpr)
> +				[TS_FPRSPACING * (index - PT_FPR0)];
> 		}
> 		ret = put_user(tmp,(unsigned long __user *) data);
> 		break;
> @@ -755,7 +756,8 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *chi
> 			ret = ptrace_put_reg(child, index, data);
> 		} else {
> 			flush_fp_to_thread(child);
> -			((unsigned long *)child->thread.fpr)[index - PT_FPR0] = data;
> +			((unsigned long *)child->thread.fpr)
> +				[TS_FPRSPACING * (index - PT_FPR0)] = data;
> 			ret = 0;
> 		}
> 		break;
> Index: linux-2.6-ozlabs/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace32.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-ozlabs.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace32.c
> +++ linux-2.6-ozlabs/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace32.c
> @@ -64,6 +64,11 @@ static long compat_ptrace_old(struct tas
> 	return -EPERM;
> }
>
> +/* Macros to workout the correct index for the FPR in the thread  
> struct */
> +#define FPRNUMBER(i) (((i) - PT_FPR0) >> 1)
> +#define FPRHALF(i) (((i) - PT_FPR0) % 2)
> +#define FPRINDEX(i) TS_FPRSPACING * FPRNUMBER(i) + FPRHALF(i)

we should either use this macros in both ptrace.c and ptrace32.c or  
drop them

>
> +
> long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, compat_long_t  
> request,
> 			compat_ulong_t caddr, compat_ulong_t cdata)
> {
> @@ -122,7 +127,8 @@ long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_stru
> 			 * to be an array of unsigned int (32 bits) - the
> 			 * index passed in is based on this assumption.
> 			 */
> -			tmp = ((unsigned int *)child->thread.fpr)[index - PT_FPR0];
> +			tmp = ((unsigned int *)child->thread.fpr)
> +				[FPRINDEX(index)];
> 		}
> 		ret = put_user((unsigned int)tmp, (u32 __user *)data);
> 		break;
> @@ -162,7 +168,8 @@ long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_stru
> 		CHECK_FULL_REGS(child->thread.regs);
> 		if (numReg >= PT_FPR0) {
> 			flush_fp_to_thread(child);
> -			tmp = ((unsigned long int *)child->thread.fpr)[numReg - PT_FPR0];
> +			tmp = ((unsigned long int *)child->thread.fpr)
> +				[FPRINDEX(numReg)];
> 		} else { /* register within PT_REGS struct */
> 			tmp = ptrace_get_reg(child, numReg);
> 		}
> @@ -217,7 +224,8 @@ long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_stru
> 			 * to be an array of unsigned int (32 bits) - the
> 			 * index passed in is based on this assumption.
> 			 */
> -			((unsigned int *)child->thread.fpr)[index - PT_FPR0] = data;
> +			((unsigned int *)child->thread.fpr)
> +				[TS_FPRSPACING * (index - PT_FPR0)] = data;

is there a reason this isn't FPRINDEX(index)?

- k