On Wed, 2013-05-29 at 18:38 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > Yes. I'd like to have them in. Their implementation is actually fairly > > trivial and they cannot be emulated by qemu if the rest of the XICS is > > in the kernel, so it's a problem. > > OK. Does it make more sense for you to take it as Paul suggested, or > for Gleb or Marcelo to pick it up directly?
I'll take it. > Then rm_action should always be 0 for these hcalls, right? So there's > no correctness reason to keep the hcalls in separate switch > statements. You shave off a few cycles checking rm_action, at the cost > of needing to change kvmppc_xics_hcall() if a real-mode version of > these hcalls is ever done. No, because rm_action will also be 0 if the hcall was fully done in real mode (which can happen, that's our fast path), in which case we do *NOT* want to to be re-done in virtual mode. That's why we always return whether rm_action is 0 or not when real-mode is enabled. Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
