On Mar 21, 2012, at 1:19 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 01:04 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2012, at 6:09 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>> From: Scott Wood
>>>
>>> DO_KVM will need to identify the particular exception type.
>>>
>>> There is an existing set of arbitrary numbers that Linux passes,
>>> but it's an undocumented mess that sort of corresponds to server/classic
>>> exception vectors but not really.
>>
>> So what do the new names correspond to?
>
> The names are Linux-defined. The values are IVOR numbers.
>
>> What header is defining MACHINE_CHECK, BOOKE_INTERRUPT_EXTERNAL, etc
>> (asm/kvm_asm.h)?
>
> Yes, it's asm/kvm_asm.h at the moment.
>
> It's actually BOOKE_INTERRUPT_MACHINE_CHECK, etc. The exception macros
> paste on BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ when they use it, to keep the macro users from
> having to wrap lines even more often.
>
>> If so we really should move these out of
>> asm/kvm_asm.h and into something a bit more appropriate.
>
> Yes, that was one of the things I had been planning to fix post-RFC.
> Any preference what header it should be in? asm/reg_booke.h seems to be
> the least bad option of the existing headers -- or perhaps move
> head_booke.h to arch/powerpc/include/asm.
asm/reg_booke.h seems the least painful right now. head_booke.h is only used
on 32-bit so that's not the best choice at this point. We could create an
in addition to the one in arch/powerpc/kernel/
> Long-term it would also be nice for this to replace, rather than
> supplement, the current numbers, though as Ben pointed out there are a
> number of places throughout the code that will have to be fixed for that
> to happen.
Yeah, not too worried about that. More just wanting it to be clear what one
has to 'update' if adding support for a new exception.
- k--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
