> -----Original Message----- > From: kvm-ppc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hollis Blanchard > Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 3:30 AM > To: Alexander Graf > Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm-ppc; Benjamin Herrenschmidt; Liu Yu > Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > > index 338baf9..e283e44 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > > @@ -82,8 +82,9 @@ static void > kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > > set_bit(priority, &vcpu->arch.pending_exceptions); > > } > > > > -void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > +void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, ulong flags) > > { > > + /* BookE does flags in ESR, so ignore those we get here */ > > kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM); > > } > > Actually, I think Book E prematurely sets ESR, since it's done before > the program interrupt is actually delivered. Architecturally, I'm not > sure if it's a problem, but philosophically I've always wanted it to > work the way you've just implemented for Book S. > ESR is updated not only by program but by data_tlb, data_storage, etc. Should we rearrange them all? Also DEAR has the same situation as ESR. Should it be updated when we decide to inject interrupt to guest? -- 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
