On 09/30/2013 06:20 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Alexander Graf<ag...@suse.de> writes:
On 09/30/2013 02:56 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Alexander Graf<ag...@suse.de> writes:
On 27.09.2013, at 15:03, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Alexander Graf<ag...@suse.de> writes:
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S
b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S
index 1abe478..e0229dd 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S
@@ -161,9 +161,14 @@ kvmppc_handler_trampoline_enter_end:
.global kvmppc_handler_trampoline_exit
kvmppc_handler_trampoline_exit:
+#if defined(CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_HV)
+.global kvmppc_interrupt_pr
+kvmppc_interrupt_pr:
+ ld r9, HSTATE_SCRATCH2(r13)
+#else
.global kvmppc_interrupt
kvmppc_interrupt:
Just always call it kvmppc_interrupt_pr and thus share at least that
part of the code :).
But if i don't have HV enabled, we don't compile book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S
Hence don't have the kvmppc_interrupt symbol defined.
Ah, because we're always jumping to kvmppc_interrupt. Can we make this
slightly less magical? How about we always call kvmppc_interrupt_hv
when CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_HV_POSSIBLE and always kvmppc_interrupt_pr when
CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_PR_POSSIBLE and then branch to kvmppc_interrupt_pr
from kvmppc_interrupt_hv?
IMHO that would make the code flow more obvious.
To make sure I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is
to update __KVM_HANDLER to call kvmppc_interupt_pr when HV is not
enabled ?
Yes, I think that makes the code flow more obvious. Every function
always has the same name regardless of config options then.
Something like this ( btw non tested )
Yes :).
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
