Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/29/2010 03:56 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/28/2010 11:55 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static inline u64 kvmppc_mmu_hash_pte(u64 eaddr) {
>>>>>> + return hash_64(eaddr>> PTE_SIZE, HPTEG_HASH_BITS_PTE);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static inline u64 kvmppc_mmu_hash_vpte(u64 vpage) {
>>>>>> + return hash_64(vpage& 0xfffffffffULL, HPTEG_HASH_BITS_VPTE);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static inline u64 kvmppc_mmu_hash_vpte_long(u64 vpage) {
>>>>>> + return hash_64((vpage& 0xffffff000ULL)>> 12,
>>>>>> + HPTEG_HASH_BITS_VPTE_LONG);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Still with the wierd coding style?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Not sure what's going on there. My editor displays it normally. Weird.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Try hitting 'save'.
>>>
>> hexdump -C on the respective section in the exact patch file I submitted
>> above shows:
>>
>> 00000a80 75 72 6e 20 68 61 73 68 5f 36 34 28 65 61 64 64 |urn
>> hash_64(eadd|
>> 00000a90 72 20 3e 3e 20 50 54 45 5f 53 49 5a 45 2c 20 48 |r>>
>> PTE_SIZE, H|
>>
>>
>> Maybe your mail client breaks it?
>>
>
> The list archives too:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/k...@vger.kernel.org/msg37093.html
>
> Looks like a cache coherency bug. What processor are you using?
Are we looking at the same link? Looks good to me there.
Alex
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
