On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:30:51 +0200
Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
It would be a no-op on TLB1, because there's only one "set".
-Scott
--
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
