On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:07:46PM -0500, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 10.09.2013, at 05:20, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > @@ -897,7 +897,7 @@ int fix_alignment(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > return -EFAULT;
> > }
> > } else if (flags & F) {
> > - data.dd = current->thread.TS_FPR(reg);
> > + data.ll = current->thread.TS_FPR(reg);
>
> I don't understand this change. Could you please explain?
It's simply that the type which we use to store the FPR values is now
an unsigned integer type rather than a floating-point type. If I
didn't make this change, the compiler would try to convert that
unsigned integer value into a floating-point value, which we don't
want.
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/tm.S
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/tm.S
> > @@ -12,16 +12,15 @@
> > #include <asm/reg.h>
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_VSX
> > -/* See fpu.S, this is very similar but to save/restore checkpointed FPRs/VSRs */
> > -#define __SAVE_32FPRS_VSRS_TRANSACT(n,c,base) \
> > +/* See fpu.S, this is borrowed from there */
> > +#define __SAVE_32FPRS_VSRS(n,c,base) \
>
> Should this really be in tm.S with its new name?
Do you mean, could I merge it with __SAVE_32FPVSRS from fpu.S, put it
in ppc_asm.h and avoid having two very similar macros defined in
different places? Yes I could, and that's a good idea.
Paul.
--
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
