From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: Make EPCR a valid field for booke64 and bookehv Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:47:08 -0600 Message-ID: <1354553228.2960.4@snotra> References: <1354370305-12344-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp=Yes; format=Flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: , "kvm@vger.kernel.org list" , , Mihai Caraman To: Alexander Graf Return-path: Received: from tx2ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com ([65.55.88.15]:11657 "EHLO tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755039Ab2LCQrb convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:47:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1354370305-12344-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> (from agraf@suse.de on Sat Dec 1 07:58:25 2012) Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/01/2012 07:58:25 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > In BookE, EPCR is defined and valid when either the HV or the 64bit > category are implemented. Reflect this in the field definition. > > Today the only KVM target on 64bit is HV enabled, so there is no > change in actual source code, but this keeps the code closer to the > spec and doesn't build up artificial road blocks for a PR KVM > on 64bit. [snip] > Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf > --- > arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 9 +++++++-- > 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h > b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h > index 62fbd38..3480526 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h > @@ -405,14 +405,19 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch { > #ifdef CONFIG_KVM_BOOKE_HV > u32 host_mas4; > u32 host_mas6; > - u32 shadow_epcr; > - u32 epcr; > u32 shadow_msrp; > u32 eplc; > u32 epsc; > u32 oldpir; > #endif > > +#if defined(CONFIG_BOOKE) > +#if defined(CONFIG_KVM_BOOKE_HV) || defined(CONFIG_64BIT) > + u32 shadow_epcr; > + u32 epcr; > +#endif > +#endif On a PR-mode implementation, why would we be have a shadow_epcr? It would always be set based on the host kernel, just like when running any other userspace process. -Scott