On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 08:49:49PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Wed, 2016-06-07 at 06:05:54 UTC, Sam bobroff wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c > > index 02416fe..06d79bc 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c > > @@ -588,6 +588,10 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext) > > r = 1; > > break; > > #endif > > + case KVM_CAP_PPC_HTM: > > + r = cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_TM) > > + && is_kvmppc_hv_enabled(kvm); > > I think it should be using CPU_FTR_TM_COMP. Oh, why is that? I'm happy to respin the patch I'm just curious. (I did it that way becuase that seems to be the way the other flags are used, e.g. CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC). If I read the code correctly, using CPU_FTR_TM_COMP will work fine: it should cause the cpu_has_feature() test to always return false if CPU_FTR_TM_COMP is 0. > And AFAICS you don't need to break that line. Sure, I'll un-split it when I respin. > cheers Cheers, Sam. -- 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
