> -----Original Message----- > From: kvm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:kvm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Alexander Graf > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:58 PM > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > Cc: Paul Mackerras; kvm-ppc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] KVM: PPC: debug stub interface parameter defined > > > On 31.01.2013, at 15:05, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: kvm-ppc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alexander Graf > >> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:31 PM > >> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >> Cc: Paul Mackerras; kvm-ppc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] KVM: PPC: debug stub interface parameter > >> defined > >> > >> > >> On 30.01.2013, at 15:15, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@xxxxxxx] > >>>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 5:24 PM > >>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >>>> Cc: Paul Mackerras; kvm-ppc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] KVM: PPC: debug stub interface parameter > >>>> defined > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 17.01.2013, at 12:11, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Paul Mackerras [mailto:paulus@xxxxxxxxx] > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:53 PM > >>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; agraf@xxxxxxx; > >>>>>> Bhushan Bharat- > >>>>>> R65777 > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] KVM: PPC: debug stub interface parameter > >>>>>> defined > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:54:42PM +0530, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > >>>>>>> This patch defines the interface parameter for > >>>>>>> KVM_SET_GUEST_DEBUG ioctl support. Follow up patches will use > >>>>>>> this for setting up hardware breakpoints, watchpoints and software > breakpoints. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [snip] > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > >>>>>>> index 453a10f..7d5a51c 100644 > >>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > >>>>>>> @@ -1483,6 +1483,12 @@ int kvm_vcpu_ioctl_set_one_reg(struct > >>>>>>> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > >>>>>> struct kvm_one_reg *reg) > >>>>>>> return r; > >>>>>>> } > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> +int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_guest_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > >>>>>>> + struct kvm_guest_debug *dbg) { > >>>>>>> + return -EINVAL; > >>>>>>> +} > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_get_fpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct > >>>>>>> kvm_fpu > >>>>>>> *fpu) { > >>>>>>> return -ENOTSUPP; > >>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c > >>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c index 934413c..4c94ca9 100644 > >>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c > >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c > >>>>>>> @@ -532,12 +532,6 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu > >>>>>>> *vcpu) #endif } > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_guest_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > >>>>>>> - struct kvm_guest_debug *dbg) > >>>>>>> -{ > >>>>>>> - return -EINVAL; > >>>>>>> -} > >>>>>>> - > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This will break the build for non-book E machines, since > >>>>>> kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_guest_debug() is referenced from generic code. > >>>>>> You need to add it to arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.c as well. > >>>>> > >>>>> right, I will correct this. > >>>> > >>>> Would the implementation actually be different on booke vs book3s? > >>>> My feeling is that powerpc.c is actually the right place for this. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I am not sure there will be anything common between book3s and > >>> booke. Should > >> we define the cpu specific function something like > >> kvm_ppc_vcpu_ioctl_set_guest_debug() for booke and book3s and call > >> this new defined function from kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_guest_debug() in > powerpc.c ? > >> > >> No, just put it into the subarch directories then :). No need to > >> overengineer anything for now. > > > > What you mean by subarch? Above you mentioned that powerpc.c is right place? > > Is not this patch is doing partially :) > > If the code in powerpc.c only says > > void kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_guest_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct > kvm_guest_debug *dbg) { > kvmppc_core_set_guest_debug(vcpu, dbg); } > > then doing it in powerpc.c is obviously moot. Since there is no other debug > implementation, it's ok if we try and find (and create) commonalities later. > So > yes, it's ok if you put it into booke.c or even e500.c. Just make sure to not > break any other archs (440, book3s_pr, book3s_hv). Right, yes I will correct that it compiles for all archs. Thanks. -Bharat > > > 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 -- 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
