On 21.01.2010, at 09:09, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote: > > >> -----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? If that's what the hardware does, then yes. I'm good with taking small steps though. So if you don't have the time to convert all of the handlers, you can easily start off with program interrupts. 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
