On 05/29/2013 06:57:32 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2013-05-29 at 18:38 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > Yes. I'd like to have them in. Their implementation is actually
fairly
> > trivial and they cannot be emulated by qemu if the rest of the
XICS is
> > in the kernel, so it's a problem.
>
> OK. Does it make more sense for you to take it as Paul suggested,
or
> for Gleb or Marcelo to pick it up directly?
I'll take it.
Acked-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Then rm_action should always be 0 for these hcalls, right? So
there's
> no correctness reason to keep the hcalls in separate switch
> statements. You shave off a few cycles checking rm_action, at the
cost
> of needing to change kvmppc_xics_hcall() if a real-mode version of
> these hcalls is ever done.
No, because rm_action will also be 0 if the hcall was fully done in
real
mode (which can happen, that's our fast path), in which case we do
*NOT*
want to to be re-done in virtual mode.
That's why we always return whether rm_action is 0 or not when
real-mode
is enabled.
Oh, I misread the code and thought the decision to return was based on
the return value of kvmppc_xics_rm_complete. Sorry about that. :-(
-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
