From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 19:07:34 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] KVM: PPC: Book3E: Refactor SPE_FP exit handling Message-Id: <1370459254.26139.7@snotra> List-Id: References: <300B73AA675FCE4A93EB4FC1D42459FF44EBF7@039-SN2MPN1-011.039d.mgd.msft.net> In-Reply-To: <300B73AA675FCE4A93EB4FC1D42459FF44EBF7@039-SN2MPN1-011.039d.mgd.msft.net> (from B02008@freescale.com on Wed Jun 5 02:29:47 2013) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 , "kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" On 06/05/2013 02:29:47 AM, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote: > > > case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_ROUND: > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SPE > > > kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, > > > BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_FP_ROUND); > > > r = RESUME_GUEST; > > > break; > > > > Why not use kvmppc_supports_spe() here, for consistency? > > I added cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_SPE) for the case specified above, > but here > SPE_FP_ROUND is not shared with ALTIVEC. CONFIG_SPE is used in other > places > in KVM without this check, shouldn't be all or nothing? I'd rather it be consistent, at least between handling one exception and another. -Scott