Re: [PATCH 2/4] ppc/spapr: Add a nested state struct

["Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>]

On Thu Jun 15, 2023 at 2:51 PM AEST, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
>
>
> On 6/14/23 17:26, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> >>> @@ -1766,34 +1872,8 @@ void spapr_exit_nested(PowerPCCPU *cpu, int excp)
> >>>        address_space_unmap(CPU(cpu)->as, regs, len, len, true);
> >>>    
> >>>    out_restore_l1:
> >>> -    memcpy(env->gpr, spapr_cpu->nested_host_state->gpr, sizeof(env->gpr));
> >>> -    env->lr = spapr_cpu->nested_host_state->lr;
> >>> -    env->ctr = spapr_cpu->nested_host_state->ctr;
> >>> -    memcpy(env->crf, spapr_cpu->nested_host_state->crf, sizeof(env->crf));
> >>> -    env->cfar = spapr_cpu->nested_host_state->cfar;
> >>> -    env->xer = spapr_cpu->nested_host_state->xer;
> >>> -    env->so = spapr_cpu->nested_host_state->so;
> >>> -    env->ca = spapr_cpu->nested_host_state->ca;
> >>> -    env->ov = spapr_cpu->nested_host_state->ov;
> >>> -    env->ov32 = spapr_cpu->nested_host_state->ov32;
> >>> -    env->ca32 = spapr_cpu->nested_host_state->ca32;
> >>
> >> Above fields so, ca, ov, ov32, ca32 are not taken care in
> >> nested_load_state, ca being introduced in previous patch.
> > 
> > They should be, by cpu_write_xer.
> > 
> I see. In that case, do we really need the previous 1/4 patch?

Good question. This supersedes it, but it's good practice to do a
minimal fixes for bugs. Not just to make for easier backporting, but it
helps to understand bugs in the commit history.

>
> Reviewed-by: Harsh Prateek Bora <harshpb@linux.ibm.com>

Thanks,
Nick