On 25.06.2012, at 14:26, Mihai Caraman wrote:
> Add emulation helper for getting instruction ea and refactor tlb instruction
> emulation to use it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h | 6 +++---
> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_tlb.c | 23 ++++++-----------------
> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h
> index 3e31098..70bfed4 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h
> @@ -130,9 +130,9 @@ int kvmppc_e500_emul_mt_mmucsr0(struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500,
> ulong value);
> int kvmppc_e500_emul_tlbwe(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> int kvmppc_e500_emul_tlbre(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> -int kvmppc_e500_emul_tlbivax(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int ra, int rb);
> -int kvmppc_e500_emul_tlbilx(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int rt, int ra, int rb);
> -int kvmppc_e500_emul_tlbsx(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int rb);
> +int kvmppc_e500_emul_tlbivax(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t ea);
> +int kvmppc_e500_emul_tlbilx(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int rt, gva_t ea);
> +int kvmppc_e500_emul_tlbsx(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t ea);
> int kvmppc_e500_tlb_init(struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500);
> void kvmppc_e500_tlb_uninit(struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500);
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c
> index 8b99e07..81288f7 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c
> @@ -82,6 +82,17 @@ static int kvmppc_e500_emul_msgsnd(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int rb)
> }
> #endif
>
> +static inline ulong kvmppc_get_ea_indexed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int ra, int rb)
> +{
> + ulong ea;
> +
> + ea = kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, rb);
> + if (ra)
> + ea += kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, ra);
> +
> + return ea;
> +}
> +
Please move this one to arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_ppc.h.
> int kvmppc_core_emulate_op(struct kvm_run *run, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> unsigned int inst, int *advance)
> {
> @@ -89,6 +100,7 @@ int kvmppc_core_emulate_op(struct kvm_run *run, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> int ra = get_ra(inst);
> int rb = get_rb(inst);
> int rt = get_rt(inst);
> + gva_t ea;
>
> switch (get_op(inst)) {
> case 31:
> @@ -113,15 +125,18 @@ int kvmppc_core_emulate_op(struct kvm_run *run, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> break;
>
> case XOP_TLBSX:
> - emulated = kvmppc_e500_emul_tlbsx(vcpu,rb);
> + ea = kvmppc_get_ea_indexed(vcpu, ra, rb);
> + emulated = kvmppc_e500_emul_tlbsx(vcpu, ea);
> break;
>
> case XOP_TLBILX:
> - emulated = kvmppc_e500_emul_tlbilx(vcpu, rt, ra, rb);
> + ea = kvmppc_get_ea_indexed(vcpu, ra, rb);
> + emulated = kvmppc_e500_emul_tlbilx(vcpu, rt, ea);
What's the point in hiding ra+rb, but not rt? I like the idea of hiding the register semantics, but please move rt into a local variable that gets passed as pointer to kvmppc_e500_emul_tlbilx.
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
