On 07/10/2012 07:36 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 19:34 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: >> Unlike classic, we don't really need the MSR change to be atomic with the >> branch. This eliminates a trap as a KVM guest (in the absence of >> hardware hypervisor extensions), where mtmsr is paravirtualized but rfi >> is not. For a virtualized guest without any paravirtualization, this >> eliminates an additional two traps (SRR0/1). > > In fact, I wonder, what do we write into the MSR at this point that > wasn't already in it in BookE ? RI ? I wonder if we could get away > without the mtmsr alltogether...
Doesn't EE get set there for some exceptions? -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
