Re: [PATCH 0/6] KVM: PPC: Book3S PR: Add POWER8 support

["Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> writes:

> On 05/05/2014 04:38 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> writes:
>>
>>> On 05/04/2014 06:36 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>> Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> When running on a POWER8 host, we get away with running the guest as POWER7
>>>>> and nothing falls apart.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, when we start exposing POWER8 as guest CPU, guests will start using
>>>>> new abilities on POWER8 which we need to handle.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch set does a minimalistic approach to implementing those bits to
>>>>> make guests happy enough to run.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex
>>>>>
>>>>> Alexander Graf (6):
>>>>>     KVM: PPC: Book3S PR: Ignore PMU SPRs
>>>>>     KVM: PPC: Book3S PR: Emulate TIR register
>>>>>     KVM: PPC: Book3S PR: Handle Facility interrupt and FSCR
>>>>>     KVM: PPC: Book3S PR: Expose TAR facility to guest
>>>>>     KVM: PPC: Book3S PR: Expose EBB registers
>>>>>     KVM: PPC: Book3S PR: Expose TM registers
>>>>>
>>>>>    arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h        | 18 ++++---
>>>>>    arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_book3s_asm.h |  2 +
>>>>>    arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h       |  3 ++
>>>>>    arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c         |  3 ++
>>>>>    arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.c                 | 34 +++++++++++++
>>>>>    arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_emulate.c         | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>    arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c              | 30 -----------
>>>>>    arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c              | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>    arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S         | 25 ++++++++++
>>>>>    9 files changed, 212 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>> I did most of this as part of
>>>>
>>>> [RFC PATCH 01/10] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: PR: Add POWER8 support
>>>> http://mid.gmane.org/1390927455-3312-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
>>>>
>>>> Any reason why that is not picked up ? TM was the reason I didn't push the
>>>> patchset again. I was not sure how to get all the TM details to
>>>> work.
>>> Ugh, I guess I mostly discarded it as brainstorm patches because they
>>> were marked RFC :(
>>>
>> Do you want me to rework them ?. I guess facility unavailable part and
>> TM part in this series are better than what I had. Rest all are more or
>> less similar. Or you could cherry pick the SPR handling you haven't
>> added yet from this series ?
>
> I personally refuse to apply patches that are marked RFC, since IMHO on 
> those the author himself isn't sure he wants them applied yet :).
>
> I'd say I'll just apply mine after another autotest run and then you 
> rebase your things on top and fill the gaps with a real, non-RFC patch set.

Will do

-aneesh