On 06/03/2013 03:54:24 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
SPE_FP interrupts are shared with ALTIVEC. Refactor SPE_FP exit
handling
to detect KVM support for the featured unit at run-time, in order to
accommodate ALTIVEC later.
Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 80
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
index 1020119..d082bbc 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
@@ -822,6 +822,15 @@ static void kvmppc_restart_interrupt(struct
kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
}
}
+static inline bool kvmppc_supports_spe(void)
+{
+#ifdef CONFIG_SPE
+ if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_SPE))
+ return true;
+#endif
+ return false;
+}
Whitespace
/**
* kvmppc_handle_exit
*
@@ -931,42 +940,71 @@ int kvmppc_handle_exit(struct kvm_run *run,
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
r = RESUME_GUEST;
break;
-#ifdef CONFIG_SPE
case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_UNAVAIL: {
- if (vcpu->arch.shared->msr & MSR_SPE)
- kvmppc_vcpu_enable_spe(vcpu);
- else
- kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu,
-
BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_UNAVAIL);
+ /*
+ * The interrupt is shared, KVM support for the
featured unit
+ * is detected at run-time.
+ */
This is a decent comment for the changelog, but for the code itself it
seems fairly obvious if you look at the definition of
kvmppc_supports_spe().
+ bool handled = false;
+
+ if (kvmppc_supports_spe()) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_SPE
+ if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_SPE))
Didn't you already check this using kvmppc_supports_spe()?
case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_ROUND:
+#ifdef CONFIG_SPE
kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu,
BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_FP_ROUND);
r = RESUME_GUEST;
break;
Why not use kvmppc_supports_spe() here, for consistency?
-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
