diff for duplicates of <1372876575.8183.137@snotra> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 5a96bff..6b76339 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ On 07/03/2013 12:07:30 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: -> +>=20 > On 03.07.2013, at 18:49, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote: -> -> >>>> Do we need to do this even when the guest doesn't use Altivec? +>=20 +> >>>> Do we need to do this even when the guest doesn't use Altivec? =20 > Can't > >> we > >>>> just load it on demand then once we fault? This code path really @@ -12,21 +12,21 @@ On 07/03/2013 12:07:30 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>> > >>> No we can't, read 6/6. > >> -> >> So we have to make sure we're completely unlazy when it comes to a +> >> So we have to make sure we're completely unlazy when it comes to a =20 > KVM > >> guest. Are we? > > > > Yes, because MSR[SPV] is under its control. -> -> Oh, sure, KVM wants it unlazy. That part is obvious. But does the -> kernel always give us unlazyness? The way I read the code, process.c +>=20 +> Oh, sure, KVM wants it unlazy. That part is obvious. But does the =20 +> kernel always give us unlazyness? The way I read the code, process.c =20 > goes lazy when !CONFIG_SMP. -> -> So the big question is why we're manually enforcing FPU giveup, but +>=20 +> So the big question is why we're manually enforcing FPU giveup, but =20 > not Altivec giveup? One of the 2 probably is wrong :). -Why do you think we're not enforcing it for Altivec? Is there some -specific piece of code you're referring to that is different in this +Why do you think we're not enforcing it for Altivec? Is there some =20 +specific piece of code you're referring to that is different in this =20 regard? --Scott +-Scott= diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 6f0d7bf..9141358 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -7,19 +7,19 @@ "ref\0098F899F-54BF-4172-958B-C52C015F5142@suse.de\0" "From\0Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>\0" "Subject\0Re: [PATCH 4/6] KVM: PPC: Book3E: Add AltiVec support\0" - "Date\0Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:36:15 +0000\0" + "Date\0Wed, 3 Jul 2013 13:36:15 -0500\0" "To\0Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>\0" "Cc\0Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 <B02008@freescale.com>" - kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org> + linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org> kvm@vger.kernel.org <kvm@vger.kernel.org> - " linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>\0" + " kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On 07/03/2013 12:07:30 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:\n" - "> \n" + ">=20\n" "> On 03.07.2013, at 18:49, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote:\n" - "> \n" - "> >>>> Do we need to do this even when the guest doesn't use Altivec? \n" + ">=20\n" + "> >>>> Do we need to do this even when the guest doesn't use Altivec? =20\n" "> Can't\n" "> >> we\n" "> >>>> just load it on demand then once we fault? This code path really\n" @@ -29,23 +29,23 @@ "> >>>\n" "> >>> No we can't, read 6/6.\n" "> >>\n" - "> >> So we have to make sure we're completely unlazy when it comes to a \n" + "> >> So we have to make sure we're completely unlazy when it comes to a =20\n" "> KVM\n" "> >> guest. Are we?\n" "> >\n" "> > Yes, because MSR[SPV] is under its control.\n" - "> \n" - "> Oh, sure, KVM wants it unlazy. That part is obvious. But does the \n" - "> kernel always give us unlazyness? The way I read the code, process.c \n" + ">=20\n" + "> Oh, sure, KVM wants it unlazy. That part is obvious. But does the =20\n" + "> kernel always give us unlazyness? The way I read the code, process.c =20\n" "> goes lazy when !CONFIG_SMP.\n" - "> \n" - "> So the big question is why we're manually enforcing FPU giveup, but \n" + ">=20\n" + "> So the big question is why we're manually enforcing FPU giveup, but =20\n" "> not Altivec giveup? One of the 2 probably is wrong :).\n" "\n" - "Why do you think we're not enforcing it for Altivec? Is there some \n" - "specific piece of code you're referring to that is different in this \n" + "Why do you think we're not enforcing it for Altivec? Is there some =20\n" + "specific piece of code you're referring to that is different in this =20\n" "regard?\n" "\n" - -Scott + -Scott= -36fe2a25cceace101f7cdd2ed00769fd0e7afb22d640a421f5f6bbd1ef840dd3 +df7086a7d2ffaf222c795204352bf3e43d7a964d9ed25953fd0dd117ba11a06b
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N2/content_digest index 6f0d7bf..b6260a1 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N2/content_digest @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ "ref\0098F899F-54BF-4172-958B-C52C015F5142@suse.de\0" "From\0Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>\0" "Subject\0Re: [PATCH 4/6] KVM: PPC: Book3E: Add AltiVec support\0" - "Date\0Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:36:15 +0000\0" + "Date\0Wed, 3 Jul 2013 13:36:15 -0500\0" "To\0Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>\0" "Cc\0Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 <B02008@freescale.com>" kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org> @@ -48,4 +48,4 @@ "\n" -Scott -36fe2a25cceace101f7cdd2ed00769fd0e7afb22d640a421f5f6bbd1ef840dd3 +4c5c4916fea3cf63ef7821991d115f9555c8fcf47450fc0254c612fe3aa6e26b
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.