Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: Reject probes on instructions that can't be single stepped

From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: "Murilo Opsfelder Araújo" <mopsfelder@gmail.com>,
	"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	"Christophe Leroy" <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: Reject probes on instructions that can't be single stepped
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:58:33 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8735j7gdpi.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9b5ec756-a074-390a-0955-6d973eacac28@gmail.com>

Murilo Opsfelder Araújo <mopsfelder@gmail.com> writes:
> On 3/23/22 08:51, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
...
>> +	case 31:
>> +		switch ((inst >> 1) & 0x3ff) {
>> +		case 4:		/* tw */
>> +			return false;
>> +		case 68:	/* td */
>> +			return false;
>> +		case 146:	/* mtmsr */
>> +			return false;
>> +		case 178:	/* mtmsrd */
>> +			return false;
>> +		}
>> +		break;
>> +	}
>> +	return true;
>> +}
>> +
>
> Can't OP_* definitions from ppc-opcode.h be used for all of these switch-case statements?

Yes please. And add any that are missing.

cheers