On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 14:51 +0000, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > > Indeed, but there are still some questions to be asked here: > > 1) Why were these bits removed from the original bitmask in the first place without > it being documented in the commit message? > > 2) Is this the right fix? I'm told that MacOS guests already run without this patch > on a G5 under 64-bit KVM-PR which may suggest that this is a workaround for another > bug elsewhere in the 32-bit powerpc code. > > > If you think that these points don't matter, then I'm happy to resubmit the patch > as-is based upon your comments above. We should write a test case to verify that FE0/FE1 are properly preserved/context-switched etc... I bet if we accidentally wiped them, we wouldn't notice 99.9% of the time. Cheers, Ben.
