From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com (e23smtp06.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e23smtp06.au.ibm.com", Issuer "GeoTrust SSL CA" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D4282C008D for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:32:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp06.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:26:43 +1000 Received: from d23relay03.au.ibm.com (d23relay03.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.21]) by d23dlp01.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB26A2CE804C for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:32:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by d23relay03.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r3A5WC5m7733584 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:32:13 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r3A5WGmA019484 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:32:17 +1000 Message-ID: <1365571931.10616.12.camel@ThinkPad-T5421> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/6] powerpc: Use generic code for exception handling From: Li Zhong To: Michael Ellerman Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:32:11 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20130410045659.GB15929@concordia> References: <1364551221-23177-1-git-send-email-zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1364551221-23177-7-git-send-email-zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130410045659.GB15929@concordia> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: fweisbec@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 14:56 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 06:00:21PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote: > > After the exception handling moved to generic code, and some changes in > ... > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c > > index 360fba8..eeab30f 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c > > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ > > #include > > #include > > #include > > +#include > > > > #include > > #include > > @@ -56,7 +57,6 @@ > > #include > > #include > > #include > > -#include > > > > #ifdef DEBUG > > #define DBG(fmt...) udbg_printf(fmt) > > @@ -919,13 +919,17 @@ int hash_page(unsigned long ea, unsigned long access, unsigned long trap) > > const struct cpumask *tmp; > > int rc, user_region = 0, local = 0; > > int psize, ssize; > > + enum ctx_state prev_state; > > + > > + prev_state = exception_enter(); > > > > DBG_LOW("hash_page(ea=%016lx, access=%lx, trap=%lx\n", > > ea, access, trap); > > > > if ((ea & ~REGION_MASK) >= PGTABLE_RANGE) { > > DBG_LOW(" out of pgtable range !\n"); > > - return 1; > > + rc = 1; > > + goto exit; > > } > > > > /* Get region & vsid */ > > This no longer applies on mainline, please send an updated version. Yes, for current mainline (powerpc tree), only previous five patches could be applied. The dependency of this patch is current in tip tree, and seems would be in for 3.10. There are some more details in the cover letter (#0): "I assume these patches would get in through powerpc tree, so I didn't combine the new patch (#6) with the original one (#2). So that if powerpc tree picks these, it could pick the first five patches, and apply patch #6 later when the dependency enters into powerpc tree (maybe on some 3.10-rcs)." Thanks, Zhong > cheers >