Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On 05/05/2014 04:26 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On 05/04/2014 07:21 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>> Although it's optional IBM POWER cpus always had DAR value set on
>>>> alignment interrupt. So don't try to compute these values.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes from V3:
>>>> * Use make_dsisr instead of checking feature flag to decide whether to use
>>>> saved dsisr or not
>>>>
>> ....
>>
>>>> ulong kvmppc_alignment_dar(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned int inst)
>>>> {
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64
>>>> + return vcpu->arch.fault_dar;
>>> How about PA6T and G5s?
>>>
>>>
>> Paul mentioned that BOOK3S always had DAR value set on alignment
>> interrupt. And the patch is to enable/collect correct DAR value when
>> running with Little Endian PR guest. Now to limit the impact and to
>> enable Little Endian PR guest, I ended up doing the conditional code
>> only for book3s 64 for which we know for sure that we set DAR value.
>
> Yes, and I'm asking whether we know that this statement holds true for
> PA6T and G5 chips which I wouldn't consider IBM POWER. Since the G5 is
> at least developed by IBM, I'd assume its semantics here are similar to
> POWER4, but for PA6T I wouldn't be so sure.
I will have to defer to Paul on that question. But that should not
prevent this patch from going upstream right ?
-aneesh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
