From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Kardashevskiy Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PPC: KVM: fix RESUME_GUEST checks Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:29:03 +1100 Message-ID: <52F436DF.9050508@ozlabs.ru> References: <20140206163650.3074.8111.stgit@bahia.lab.toulouse-stg.fr.ibm.com> <52F42315.9010100@ozlabs.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org mailing list" , kvm-ppc , Paul Mackerras To: Alexander Graf , Greg Kurz Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52F42315.9010100@ozlabs.ru> Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 02/07/2014 11:04 AM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > On 02/07/2014 04:39 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 06.02.2014, at 17:36, Greg Kurz wrote: >> >>> As discussed in this thread: >>> >>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/309166/ >>> >>> We need some consistency in the way we check whether the guest >>> should resume or not because: >>> - new RESUME_GUEST_XXX values may show up >>> - more locations in KVM may need to perform a similar check >>> >>> This serie introduces a helper and patches the locations where it >>> should be called. There is yet another location in __kvmppc_vcpu_run, >>> but it is assembly and cannot call a C inlined function. >> >> Thanks, applied all to kvm-ppc-queue. I think the splitting on this one is quite excessive - a single patch would've done :). > > Why did it get applied immediately? #3 or #4 (I do not remember for sure) > break HV KVM, this is why I do not repost it and keep trying Paul to reply > to the initial thread. Ah. No, false alarm, sorry. I think "while(!(r & RESUME_FLAG_HOST));" failed but this is different. -- Alexey