On 6/21/22 18:21, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
[E-MAIL EXTERNO] Não clique em links ou abra anexos, a menos que você possa
confirmar o remetente e saber que o conteúdo é seguro. Em caso de e-mail
suspeito entre imediatamente em contato com o DTI.
Leandro Lupori <leandro.lup...@eldorado.org.br> writes:
Check if the number and size of Radix levels are valid on
POWER9/POWER10 CPUs, according to the supported Radix Tree
Configurations described in their User Manuals.
Signed-off-by: Leandro Lupori <leandro.lup...@eldorado.org.br>
---
target/ppc/mmu-radix64.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/target/ppc/mmu-radix64.c b/target/ppc/mmu-radix64.c
index 9a8a2e2875..2f0bcbfe2e 100644
--- a/target/ppc/mmu-radix64.c
+++ b/target/ppc/mmu-radix64.c
@@ -236,13 +236,31 @@ static void ppc_radix64_set_rc(PowerPCCPU *cpu,
MMUAccessType access_type,
}
}
+static bool ppc_radix64_is_valid_level(int level, int psize, uint64_t nls)
I wonder if we should take the time to make this per-CPU now to prepare
for any future CPU that supports a different layout.
The downside would be that we would already take a performance hit by
calling this function through a CPU class pointer. It would also prevent
compiler optimizations that are possible with local static functions.
I can leave a comment in ppc_radix64_is_valid_level, suggesting the
addition of a new CPU class method, if a new CPU that supports other
Radix configurations is added (e.g., Microwatt).
Thanks,
Leandro
