> Am 05.05.2014 um 16:50 schrieb "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> 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 ?
Regressions are big no-gos.
Alex
>
> -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
