On 12/01/2012 07:58:25 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
In BookE, EPCR is defined and valid when either the HV or the 64bit
category are implemented. Reflect this in the field definition.
Today the only KVM target on 64bit is HV enabled, so there is no
change in actual source code, but this keeps the code closer to the
spec and doesn't build up artificial road blocks for a PR KVM
on 64bit.
[snip]
Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx>
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 9 +++++++--
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index 62fbd38..3480526 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
@@ -405,14 +405,19 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_BOOKE_HV
u32 host_mas4;
u32 host_mas6;
- u32 shadow_epcr;
- u32 epcr;
u32 shadow_msrp;
u32 eplc;
u32 epsc;
u32 oldpir;
#endif
+#if defined(CONFIG_BOOKE)
+#if defined(CONFIG_KVM_BOOKE_HV) || defined(CONFIG_64BIT)
+ u32 shadow_epcr;
+ u32 epcr;
+#endif
+#endif
On a PR-mode implementation, why would we be have a shadow_epcr? It
would always be set based on the host kernel, just like when running
any other userspace process.
-Scott
--
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
