From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] POWERPC: BOOK3S: KVM: Use the saved dar value and generic make_dsisr Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 20:20:58 +0530 Message-ID: <87fvko9t4d.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1399224075-18041-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <536773C2.1070502@suse.de> <87tx949u9d.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5367A39D.9080709@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, olofj@google.com To: Alexander Graf Return-path: Received: from e23smtp09.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.142]:43768 "EHLO e23smtp09.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932448AbaEEOvQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2014 10:51:16 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp09.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 6 May 2014 00:51:13 +1000 In-Reply-To: <5367A39D.9080709@suse.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Alexander Graf writes: > On 05/05/2014 04:26 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> Alexander Graf writes: >> >>> On 05/04/2014 07:21 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >>>> Although it's optional IBM POWER cpus always had DAR value set on >>>> alignment interrupt. So don't try to compute these values. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V >>>> --- >>>> Changes from V3: >>>> * Use make_dsisr instead of checking feature flag to decide whether to use >>>> saved dsisr or not >>>> >> .... >> >>>> ulong kvmppc_alignment_dar(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned int inst) >>>> { >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64 >>>> + return vcpu->arch.fault_dar; >>> How about PA6T and G5s? >>> >>> >> Paul mentioned that BOOK3S always had DAR value set on alignment >> interrupt. And the patch is to enable/collect correct DAR value when >> running with Little Endian PR guest. Now to limit the impact and to >> enable Little Endian PR guest, I ended up doing the conditional code >> only for book3s 64 for which we know for sure that we set DAR value. > > Yes, and I'm asking whether we know that this statement holds true for > PA6T and G5 chips which I wouldn't consider IBM POWER. Since the G5 is > at least developed by IBM, I'd assume its semantics here are similar to > POWER4, but for PA6T I wouldn't be so sure. I will have to defer to Paul on that question. But that should not prevent this patch from going upstream right ? -aneesh