From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51C1CC433E0 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 12:09:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2445720885 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 12:09:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="b9IRhHrz" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727855AbgGDMJz (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Jul 2020 08:09:55 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45058 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727108AbgGDMJy (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Jul 2020 08:09:54 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x441.google.com (mail-wr1-x441.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::441]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0BDFC061794 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 05:09:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x441.google.com with SMTP id s10so35445270wrw.12 for ; Sat, 04 Jul 2020 05:09:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q6/l6gbVd+4D3HhCjT+3idiCPEiasxsjgaH+81aczFE=; b=b9IRhHrzCgesVbckByioxGPz8FlQfkEkVf1NAa+4MF96GTovlwurUQsUsys1b5Ts4U ZoMO+/4NqCZOuk9mZuFSTIzqIvoCiTdOlygnvwJC2XxNUu38v/5vQyJP/L8OftsGaf54 xmBDeimTuhrrVORWJCPd8tsTVsan5nSaASspLFjclUJqabNc3IgaNOO5zaMvfLGn1SgM qNz06vmFzuCymAFXe7A3ZxuFxVP7+iQFduXf12UNDfmfj4Z30Kr31ASgbLhIfdYanhER sKJnedGfLrmRiXrJw6KpcQmPi1syhPyDV5ZMEH4UMi0Dcupi5RHeRSDW8WmJtiOO2ffD 0Evw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q6/l6gbVd+4D3HhCjT+3idiCPEiasxsjgaH+81aczFE=; b=bG5Fw86RpuDzgEskalP/Md6x2bg7TT9BANqSjUS86LGspUFPhQsrYPJ8eTR+nL922O LiaS50hyR0g9iUQtp0i/DRkMW7dB4i3uIc5oJD4duW4KxTITjjIpc5beY0UqC7+begRB yfmSGvR1TGu/fZDYZUu0xkLed5zw64G+WddAB08TmGUR7Hp3Y8EzCGGrB0HWOFrDXGVI n37sA5D+sCmMfb4uF7Q+Cyl42rRCC8Ey9rwOVSZO58SaryWYA+qJWjKqiLSvstLkR+iB 2hJ71pV+hqgfpJaSEjDZIeD/VwNOSfxNAdSYJlMZTVaDr0D0uvVzgi3OPRTBdAzQ409G pD8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530K5bLj5FYxfUMniq9/qMzVpaCZLDozlWme4Duan9J4Rx4HyeqG aL53wGwrPrWjbwIxoY2x0o9UIaUNkWtRpKtzjB5wCIon X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwB9vVrA8j1YWUIpC/xHJschuvr8/Zcw6GKLce+xK6MBdOXF17mnIqhhLFLxsor2Wf7JWJi6AF5eWi6o8zAgcQ= X-Received: by 2002:adf:ec90:: with SMTP id z16mr40439204wrn.52.1593864593453; Sat, 04 Jul 2020 05:09:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200702200727.239348-1-kernel@esmil.dk> In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2020 14:09:42 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] riscv: Add jump-label implementation To: Emil Renner Berthing Cc: linux-riscv , Palmer Dabbelt , Paul Walmsley , Anup Patel , Atish Patra , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 13:35, Emil Renner Berthing wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 13:23, Bj=C3=B6rn T=C3=B6pel wrote: [...] > > Indeed. And nice work! Can you respin the patch with the 32b fix > > above, and also without the RFC tag? > > Yes, of course. If you don't mind I'll wait a bit and let this collect > a bit more comments. > Certainly! > > Curious; Why is [branch ? 1 : 0] needed when coding the boolean into > > the key pointer (arm64 is just [branch]). Different encoding of > > booleans (branch in this case)? > > No, that was just me being unsure exactly how bool works when used as > an index. After reading up on it it seems the original code is right, > you can actually trust that _Bool is either 0 or 1. I'll fix it in the > next version. Thanks! > Cool! Thanks for clearing that up for me! Cheers, Bj=C3=B6rn