On 18.07.2011, at 18:12, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:16:10 +0200
> Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08.07.2011, at 01:41, Scott Wood wrote:
>>
>>> It should contain the way, not the absolute TLB0 index.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_tlb.c | 3 +++
>>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_tlb.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_tlb.c
>>> index 13c432e..2e99d66 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_tlb.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_tlb.c
>>> @@ -788,6 +788,9 @@ int kvmppc_e500_emul_tlbsx(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int rb)
>>> }
>>>
>>> if (gtlbe) {
>>> + if (tlbsel == 0)
>>> + esel &= KVM_E500_TLB0_WAY_NUM - 1;
>>
>> Is it guaranteed that MAS0_ESEL always returns at most the TLB1 index nr?
>
> What's the relevance of TLB1 here?
>
> For TLB0, esel is supposed to contain the way, not the index into the full
> TLB.
Well, for both esel is supposed to contain the way, just that for TLB1 it happens to be the index, or am I misunderstanding something here? The question was basically why we need to mask out on TLB0, but not on TLB1.
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
