On 04.07.14 00:15, Scott Wood wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 10:25 -0500, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 3:21 PM
To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008; kvm-ppc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6 v2] KVM: PPC: Book3E: Use common defines for
SPE/FP/AltiVec int numbers
On 30.06.14 17:34, Mihai Caraman wrote:
Use common BOOKE_IRQPRIO and BOOKE_INTERRUPT defines for SPE/FP/AltiVec
which share the same interrupt numbers.
Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
v2:
- remove outdated definitions
arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h | 8 --------
arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 17 +++++++++--------
arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.h | 4 ++--
arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_interrupts.S | 9 +++++----
arch/powerpc/kvm/bookehv_interrupts.S | 4 ++--
arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.c | 10 ++++++----
arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c | 10 ++++++----
7 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
index 9601741..c94fd33 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
@@ -56,14 +56,6 @@
/* E500 */
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL 32
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST 33
-/*
- * TODO: Unify 32-bit and 64-bit kernel exception handlers to use same
defines
- */
-#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_UNAVAIL
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL
-#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST
-#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL
-#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_ASSIST \
- BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST
I think I'd prefer to keep them separate.
What is the reason from changing your mind from ver 1? Do you want to have
different defines with same values (we specifically mapped them to the
hardware interrupt numbers). We already upstreamed the necessary changes
in the kernel. Scott, please share your opinion here.
I don't like hiding the fact that they're the same number, which could
lead to wrong code in the absence of ifdefs that strictly mutually
exclude SPE and Altivec code -- there was an instance of this with
MSR_VEC versus MSR_SPE in a previous patchset.
The nice thing here is that we use almost all of these numbers in
switch() statements which give us automated duplicate checking - so we
don't accidentally go into the wrong code path without knowing it.
Alex
--
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
