d Scott-B07421
>> Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] KVM:PPC:booke: Allow debug interrupt injection to
>> guest
>>
>>
>> On 01.02.2013, at 23:38, Scott Wood wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/31
.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] KVM:PPC:booke: Allow debug interrupt injection to
> guest
>
>
> On 01.02.2013, at 23:38, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > On 01/31/2013 06:11:32 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> On 31.01.2013, at 23:40, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> > On 01/3
ernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] KVM:PPC:booke: Allow debug interrupt injection to
>> guest
>>
>> On 01/31/2013 06:11:32 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31.01.2013, at 23:40, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/31/2013 01:20:39 PM, Alex
> -Original Message-
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 4:09 AM
> To: Alexander Graf
> Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] KVM:PPC:booke: Allow debug interrupt injection to
>
On 01.02.2013, at 23:38, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 06:11:32 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 31.01.2013, at 23:40, Scott Wood wrote:
>> > On 01/31/2013 01:20:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> >> On 31.01.2013, at 20:05, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On 31.01.2013, at 19:54, Scott Woo
8/8] KVM:PPC:booke: Allow debug interrupt
injection to guest
>
> On 01/31/2013 06:11:32 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > My main concern here is that we don't know when to remove MSR_DE
again
> > from the (shadow) MSR. So how about this one instead?
>
> Why wouldn'
> -Original Message-
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 4:09 AM
> To: Alexander Graf
> Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; kvm-...@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] KVM:PPC:booke: Allow debug interrupt injection to
>
On 01/31/2013 06:11:32 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 31.01.2013, at 23:40, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 01:20:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 31.01.2013, at 20:05, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> >
>> > On 31.01.2013, at 19:54, Scott Wood wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 01/31/2013 12:52:41 PM, Alexander G
On 31.01.2013, at 23:40, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 01:20:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 31.01.2013, at 20:05, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> >
>> > On 31.01.2013, at 19:54, Scott Wood wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 01/31/2013 12:52:41 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> >>> On 31.01.2013, at 19:43, Scott Wo
On 01/31/2013 01:20:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 31.01.2013, at 20:05, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 31.01.2013, at 19:54, Scott Wood wrote:
>
>> On 01/31/2013 12:52:41 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> On 31.01.2013, at 19:43, Scott Wood wrote:
On 01/31/2013 12:21:07 PM, Alexander Graf wrot
On 31.01.2013, at 20:05, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 31.01.2013, at 19:54, Scott Wood wrote:
>
>> On 01/31/2013 12:52:41 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> On 31.01.2013, at 19:43, Scott Wood wrote:
On 01/31/2013 12:21:07 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> How about something like this? Then both
On 31.01.2013, at 19:54, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 12:52:41 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 31.01.2013, at 19:43, Scott Wood wrote:
>> > On 01/31/2013 12:21:07 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> >> How about something like this? Then both targets at least suck as much :).
>> >
>> > I'm not sure
On 01/31/2013 12:52:41 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 31.01.2013, at 19:43, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 12:21:07 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> How about something like this? Then both targets at least suck as
much :).
>
> I'm not sure that should be the goal...
>
>> Thanks to e500mc's awf
On 31.01.2013, at 19:43, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 12:21:07 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> How about something like this? Then both targets at least suck as much :).
>
> I'm not sure that should be the goal...
>
>> Thanks to e500mc's awful hardware design, we don't know who sets the MSR_D
On 01/31/2013 12:21:07 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
How about something like this? Then both targets at least suck as
much :).
I'm not sure that should be the goal...
Thanks to e500mc's awful hardware design, we don't know who sets the
MSR_DE bit. Once we forced it onto the guest, we have no c
;> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
>> Cc: kvm-...@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] KVM:PPC:booke: Allow debug interrupt injection to
>> guest
>>
>>
>> On 30.01.2013, at 12:12, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
On 01/31/2013 06:04:29 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 30.01.2013, at 12:12, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
> On bookehv this is how I am controlling the MSR_DE in hardware MSR.
>
>> And why is this whole thing only executed on HV?
>
> On e500v2 we always enable MSR_DE using vcpu->arch.shadow_msr in
.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Graf
> >> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 5:44 PM
> >> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
> >> Cc: kvm-...@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; Bhushan
> >> Bharat-R65777
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] KVM:PPC:booke: Allow debug in
To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
>> Cc: kvm-...@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; Bhushan Bharat-R65777
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] KVM:PPC:booke: Allow debug interrupt injection to
>> guest
>>
>>
>> On 16.01.2013, at 09:24, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
>>
>>>
5777
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] KVM:PPC:booke: Allow debug interrupt injection to
> guest
>
>
> On 16.01.2013, at 09:24, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
>
> > Allow userspace to inject debug interrupt to guest. QEMU can
>
> s/QEMU/user space.
>
> > inject the debug int
On 16.01.2013, at 09:24, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
> Allow userspace to inject debug interrupt to guest. QEMU can
s/QEMU/user space.
> inject the debug interrupt to guest if it is not able to handle
> the debug interrupt.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 32
Allow userspace to inject debug interrupt to guest. QEMU can
inject the debug interrupt to guest if it is not able to handle
the debug interrupt.
Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan
---
arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 32 +++-
arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c | 10 +-
2 fi
22 matches
Mail list logo
