diff for duplicates of <1369762902.18630.2@snotra> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index e90f561..89ebb57 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ On 05/23/2013 08:42:21 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote: -> This adds the remaining two hypercalls defined by PAPR for +> This adds the remaining two hypercalls defined by PAPR for =20 > manipulating > the XICS interrupt controller, H_IPOLL and H_XIRR_X. H_IPOLL returns > information about the priority and pending interrupts for a virtual @@ -9,48 +9,48 @@ On 05/23/2013 08:42:21 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote: > interrupt was first received by the hypervisor. Currently we just > return the current time, since we don't do any software queueing of > virtual interrupts inside the XICS emulation code. -> +>=20 > These hcalls are not currently used by Linux guests, but may be in > future. -> +>=20 > Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> > --- > Unfortunately I missed these two hcalls in the previous submissions. > It would be good to get this patch into 3.10 so we don't have a > kernel version with these calls missing from the API, in case future > guest kernels want to use them. -> +>=20 > Alex, given you're on vacation at the moment, are you OK with Ben > taking this through his tree? -I believe Alex is staying far away from e-mail on his vacation. He's +I believe Alex is staying far away from e-mail on his vacation. He's =20 asked me to fill in for him while he's gone. -The patch itself seems reasonable (though I don't know much about XICS, -and do have one question...), but I'll leave it up to Gleb/Marcelo/Ben -if it should go in for 3.10 and via which tree. I understand the -desire to not have an incomplete ABI in a released version, but Linus -is already grumbling about how much went into rc3, and you say the -hcalls aren't currently used... Are they likely to be used in any -timeframe in which we'd reasonably care about 3.10? If so, would the -effect of not having them implemented be such that it would be worse +The patch itself seems reasonable (though I don't know much about XICS, =20 +and do have one question...), but I'll leave it up to Gleb/Marcelo/Ben =20 +if it should go in for 3.10 and via which tree. I understand the =20 +desire to not have an incomplete ABI in a released version, but Linus =20 +is already grumbling about how much went into rc3, and you say the =20 +hcalls aren't currently used... Are they likely to be used in any =20 +timeframe in which we'd reasonably care about 3.10? If so, would the =20 +effect of not having them implemented be such that it would be worse =20 than not having in-kernel XICS at all? -> @@ -787,6 +804,18 @@ int kvmppc_xics_hcall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 +> @@ -787,6 +804,18 @@ int kvmppc_xics_hcall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 =20 > req) > if (!xics || !vcpu->arch.icp) > return H_HARDWARE; -> -> + /* These requests don't have real-mode implementations at +>=20 +> + /* These requests don't have real-mode implementations at =20 > present */ > + switch (req) { > + case H_XIRR_X: -> + res = kvmppc_h_xirr(vcpu); +> + res =3D kvmppc_h_xirr(vcpu); > + kvmppc_set_gpr(vcpu, 4, res); > + kvmppc_set_gpr(vcpu, 5, get_tb()); > + return rc; > + case H_IPOLL: -> + rc = kvmppc_h_ipoll(vcpu, kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 4)); +> + rc =3D kvmppc_h_ipoll(vcpu, kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 4)); > + return rc; > + } > + @@ -58,8 +58,8 @@ than not having in-kernel XICS at all? > if (xics->real_mode) > return kvmppc_xics_rm_complete(vcpu, req); -Could you explain what's going on here relative to -kvmppc_xics_rm_complete()? What does "returning too hard" mean, and +Could you explain what's going on here relative to =20 +kvmppc_xics_rm_complete()? What does "returning too hard" mean, and =20 why must rm_action not be checked for these hcalls? --Scott +-Scott= diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index c119fc7..0db6529 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -1,19 +1,18 @@ "ref\020130524014221.GA19310@iris.ozlabs.ibm.com\0" "From\0Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>\0" "Subject\0Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: Book3S: Add support for H_IPOLL and H_XIRR_X in XICS emulation\0" - "Date\0Tue, 28 May 2013 17:41:42 +0000\0" + "Date\0Tue, 28 May 2013 12:41:42 -0500\0" "To\0Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>\0" - "Cc\0kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" - kvm@vger.kernel.org - linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org - Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> - Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> + "Cc\0kvm@vger.kernel.org" Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> - " Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>\0" + Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> + Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> + kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org + " linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On 05/23/2013 08:42:21 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:\n" - "> This adds the remaining two hypercalls defined by PAPR for \n" + "> This adds the remaining two hypercalls defined by PAPR for =20\n" "> manipulating\n" "> the XICS interrupt controller, H_IPOLL and H_XIRR_X. H_IPOLL returns\n" "> information about the priority and pending interrupts for a virtual\n" @@ -23,48 +22,48 @@ "> interrupt was first received by the hypervisor. Currently we just\n" "> return the current time, since we don't do any software queueing of\n" "> virtual interrupts inside the XICS emulation code.\n" - "> \n" + ">=20\n" "> These hcalls are not currently used by Linux guests, but may be in\n" "> future.\n" - "> \n" + ">=20\n" "> Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>\n" "> ---\n" "> Unfortunately I missed these two hcalls in the previous submissions.\n" "> It would be good to get this patch into 3.10 so we don't have a\n" "> kernel version with these calls missing from the API, in case future\n" "> guest kernels want to use them.\n" - "> \n" + ">=20\n" "> Alex, given you're on vacation at the moment, are you OK with Ben\n" "> taking this through his tree?\n" "\n" - "I believe Alex is staying far away from e-mail on his vacation. He's \n" + "I believe Alex is staying far away from e-mail on his vacation. He's =20\n" "asked me to fill in for him while he's gone.\n" "\n" - "The patch itself seems reasonable (though I don't know much about XICS, \n" - "and do have one question...), but I'll leave it up to Gleb/Marcelo/Ben \n" - "if it should go in for 3.10 and via which tree. I understand the \n" - "desire to not have an incomplete ABI in a released version, but Linus \n" - "is already grumbling about how much went into rc3, and you say the \n" - "hcalls aren't currently used... Are they likely to be used in any \n" - "timeframe in which we'd reasonably care about 3.10? If so, would the \n" - "effect of not having them implemented be such that it would be worse \n" + "The patch itself seems reasonable (though I don't know much about XICS, =20\n" + "and do have one question...), but I'll leave it up to Gleb/Marcelo/Ben =20\n" + "if it should go in for 3.10 and via which tree. I understand the =20\n" + "desire to not have an incomplete ABI in a released version, but Linus =20\n" + "is already grumbling about how much went into rc3, and you say the =20\n" + "hcalls aren't currently used... Are they likely to be used in any =20\n" + "timeframe in which we'd reasonably care about 3.10? If so, would the =20\n" + "effect of not having them implemented be such that it would be worse =20\n" "than not having in-kernel XICS at all?\n" "\n" - "> @@ -787,6 +804,18 @@ int kvmppc_xics_hcall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 \n" + "> @@ -787,6 +804,18 @@ int kvmppc_xics_hcall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 =20\n" "> req)\n" "> \tif (!xics || !vcpu->arch.icp)\n" "> \t\treturn H_HARDWARE;\n" - "> \n" - "> +\t/* These requests don't have real-mode implementations at \n" + ">=20\n" + "> +\t/* These requests don't have real-mode implementations at =20\n" "> present */\n" "> +\tswitch (req) {\n" "> +\tcase H_XIRR_X:\n" - "> +\t\tres = kvmppc_h_xirr(vcpu);\n" + "> +\t\tres =3D kvmppc_h_xirr(vcpu);\n" "> +\t\tkvmppc_set_gpr(vcpu, 4, res);\n" "> +\t\tkvmppc_set_gpr(vcpu, 5, get_tb());\n" "> +\t\treturn rc;\n" "> +\tcase H_IPOLL:\n" - "> +\t\trc = kvmppc_h_ipoll(vcpu, kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 4));\n" + "> +\t\trc =3D kvmppc_h_ipoll(vcpu, kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 4));\n" "> +\t\treturn rc;\n" "> +\t}\n" "> +\n" @@ -72,10 +71,10 @@ "> \tif (xics->real_mode)\n" "> \t\treturn kvmppc_xics_rm_complete(vcpu, req);\n" "\n" - "Could you explain what's going on here relative to \n" - "kvmppc_xics_rm_complete()? What does \"returning too hard\" mean, and \n" + "Could you explain what's going on here relative to =20\n" + "kvmppc_xics_rm_complete()? What does \"returning too hard\" mean, and =20\n" "why must rm_action not be checked for these hcalls?\n" "\n" - -Scott + -Scott= -cd7141126dc313489e1e8c2ea418f259ef58b07044284fe6ee406b3137f7315a +a3d38fbcbf39c73e1ca5add5f281b071a4168a44bb7730729faf377aeabd4cda
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N2/content_digest index c119fc7..4d43ec9 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N2/content_digest @@ -1,11 +1,11 @@ "ref\020130524014221.GA19310@iris.ozlabs.ibm.com\0" "From\0Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>\0" "Subject\0Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: Book3S: Add support for H_IPOLL and H_XIRR_X in XICS emulation\0" - "Date\0Tue, 28 May 2013 17:41:42 +0000\0" + "Date\0Tue, 28 May 2013 12:41:42 -0500\0" "To\0Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>\0" - "Cc\0kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" - kvm@vger.kernel.org - linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org + "Cc\0<kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>" + <kvm@vger.kernel.org> + <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org> Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> @@ -78,4 +78,4 @@ "\n" -Scott -cd7141126dc313489e1e8c2ea418f259ef58b07044284fe6ee406b3137f7315a +a6e57e3ef8395db8c55dda70ab8bd3874d29a7a3e09eb25a12e7a06ae6052bc9
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.