> > -#ifdef CONFIG_SPE
> > case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL: {
> > - if (vcpu->arch.shared->msr & MSR_SPE)
> > - kvmppc_vcpu_enable_spe(vcpu);
> > - else
> > - kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu,
> > -
> BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL);
> > + if (kvmppc_supports_spe()) {
> > + bool enabled = false;
> > +
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_KVM_BOOKE_HV
> > + if (vcpu->arch.shared->msr & MSR_SPE) {
> > + kvmppc_vcpu_enable_spe(vcpu);
> > + enabled = true;
> > + }
> > +#endif
>
> Why the #ifdef? On HV capable systems kvmppc_supports_spe() will just
> always return false.
AltiVec and SPE unavailable exceptions follows the same path. While
kvmppc_supports_spe() will always return false kvmppc_supports_altivec()
may not.
> And I don't really understand why HV would be special in the first place
> here. Is it because we're accessing shared->msr?
You are right on HV case MSP[SPV] should be always zero when an unavailabe
exception take place. The distrinction was made because on non HV the guest
doesn't have direct access to MSR[SPE]. The name of the bit (not the position)
was changed on HV cores.
>
> > + if (!enabled)
> > + kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu,
> > + BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL);
> > + } else {
> > + /*
> > + * Guest wants SPE, but host kernel doesn't support it.
>
> host kernel or hardware
Ok.
-Mike
--
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
