On 31.01.2013, at 15:56, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@xxxxxxx] >> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:21 PM >> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 >> Cc: kvm-ppc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxppc- >> dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] KVM: PPC: e500: Move VCPU's MMUCFG register >> initialization earlier >> >> >> On 30.01.2013, at 14:29, Mihai Caraman wrote: >> >>> VCPU's MMUCFG register initialization should not depend on >> KVM_CAP_SW_TLB >>> ioctl call. Move it earlier into tlb initalization phase. >> >> Quite the contrary. The fact that there is an mfspr() in e500_mmu.c >> already tells us that the code is broken. The TLB guest code should only >> depend on input from the SW_TLB configuration. It's completely orthogonal >> to the host capabilities. > > Then we have the same issue for TLBnCFG registers which need to be configured > via SW_TLB ioctl. What is the purpose of guest tlb initalization in e500_mmu.c > if we rely on SW_TLB? It's to provide a fallback to user space that doesn't implement SW_TLB configuration yet. 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
