Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> writes: > On 27.09.2013, at 15:03, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > >> Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S >>>> index 1abe478..e0229dd 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S >>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S >>>> @@ -161,9 +161,14 @@ kvmppc_handler_trampoline_enter_end: >>>> .global kvmppc_handler_trampoline_exit >>>> kvmppc_handler_trampoline_exit: >>>> >>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_HV) >>>> +.global kvmppc_interrupt_pr >>>> +kvmppc_interrupt_pr: >>>> + ld r9, HSTATE_SCRATCH2(r13) >>>> +#else >>>> .global kvmppc_interrupt >>>> kvmppc_interrupt: >>> >>> Just always call it kvmppc_interrupt_pr and thus share at least that >>> part of the code :). >> >> But if i don't have HV enabled, we don't compile book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S >> Hence don't have the kvmppc_interrupt symbol defined. > > Ah, because we're always jumping to kvmppc_interrupt. Can we make this > slightly less magical? How about we always call kvmppc_interrupt_hv > when CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_HV_POSSIBLE and always kvmppc_interrupt_pr when > CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_PR_POSSIBLE and then branch to kvmppc_interrupt_pr > from kvmppc_interrupt_hv? > > IMHO that would make the code flow more obvious. To make sure I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is to update __KVM_HANDLER to call kvmppc_interupt_pr when HV is not enabled ? -aneesh -- 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
