From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Graf Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:51:05 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/11] kvm: powerpc: book3s: Add is_hv_enabled to kvmppc_ops Message-Id: <52498FD9.6060809@suse.de> List-Id: References: <1380276233-17095-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1380276233-17095-7-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <9BAA779D-FE0C-4971-992B-57D80F945906@suse.de> <87zjqya025.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87pprqbh96.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <87pprqbh96.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Cc: paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org On 09/30/2013 02:56 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Alexander Graf writes: > >> On 27.09.2013, at 15:03, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> >>> Alexander Graf writes: >>> >>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S >>>>> index 1abe478..e0229dd 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S >>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S >>>>> @@ -161,9 +161,14 @@ kvmppc_handler_trampoline_enter_end: >>>>> .global kvmppc_handler_trampoline_exit >>>>> kvmppc_handler_trampoline_exit: >>>>> >>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_HV) >>>>> +.global kvmppc_interrupt_pr >>>>> +kvmppc_interrupt_pr: >>>>> + ld r9, HSTATE_SCRATCH2(r13) >>>>> +#else >>>>> .global kvmppc_interrupt >>>>> kvmppc_interrupt: >>>> Just always call it kvmppc_interrupt_pr and thus share at least that >>>> part of the code :). >>> But if i don't have HV enabled, we don't compile book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S >>> Hence don't have the kvmppc_interrupt symbol defined. >> Ah, because we're always jumping to kvmppc_interrupt. Can we make this >> slightly less magical? How about we always call kvmppc_interrupt_hv >> when CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_HV_POSSIBLE and always kvmppc_interrupt_pr when >> CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_PR_POSSIBLE and then branch to kvmppc_interrupt_pr >> from kvmppc_interrupt_hv? >> >> IMHO that would make the code flow more obvious. > > To make sure I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is > to update __KVM_HANDLER to call kvmppc_interupt_pr when HV is not > enabled ? Yes, I think that makes the code flow more obvious. Every function always has the same name regardless of config options then. Alex