On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:45:21AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:57:17AM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 08:59:22PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 03:41:07PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 08:01:51PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > > > + if (!kvm_is_radix(vcpu->kvm)) > > > > > + return H_FUNCTION; > > > > > > > > Would it be safer / cleaner to have this instead check that the L1 has > > > > completed an H_SET_PARTITION_TABLE? Which wouldn't be allowed for an > > > > HPT guest. > > > > > > There is no valid bit in the PTCR value, and the PTCR could have been > > > set via the one-reg interface without there having been a > > > H_SET_PARTITION_TABLE in the lifetime of this KVM instance (for > > > example when the L1 guest has been migrated in from another machine), > > > so I don't see a foolproof way to do what you suggest. > > > > Ah, right. > > > > Would checking if the vPTCR is != it's initial value (0?) do the job? > > (AFAICT PTCR==0 would be unusable, even if technically allowed). > > If I did check PTCR, what error code would you suggest? I'm sure > you'd tell me not to use H_FUNCTION. :) Probably H_NOT_AVAILABLE? That's what I use if you attempt an HPT resize from an RPT guest. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
