On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 08:13:47AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2016-06-30 at 18:01 +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > > +static uint32_t ppc_hash64_pte_size_decode(PowerPCCPU *cpu, uint64_t > > pte0, > > + uint64_t pte1, uint32_t > > slb_pshift) > > { > > - switch (slb_pshift) { > > - case 12: > > - return 12; > > - case 16: > > - if ((pte1 & 0xf000) == 0x1000) { > > - return 16; > > - } > > - return 0; > > - case 24: > > - if ((pte1 & 0xff000) == 0) { > > - return 24; > > - } > > - return 0; > > - } > > - return 0; > > + unsigned spshift; > > + > > + return ppc_hash64_hpte_page_shift_noslb(cpu, pte0, pte1, > > &spshift); > > } > > Why not call ppc_hash64_hpte_page_shift_noslb() directly from the call > site ? That or rename it to ppc_hash64_pte_size_decode :-)
Right.. that is the usage that ppc_hash64_hpte_page_shift_noslb() was intended for. > Otherwise yes, your patch looks correct as in what > doesppc_hash64_hpte_page_shift_noslb() is definitely more correct than > what ppc_hash64_pte_size_decode() is doing. > -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature