Re: [RFC PATCH 06/11] kvm: powerpc: book3s: Add is_hv_enabled to kvmppc_ops
From: Alexander Graf <hidden>
Date: 2013-09-30 14:51:09
On 09/30/2013 02:56 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Alexander Graf[off-list ref] writes:quoted
On 27.09.2013, at 15:03, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:quoted
Alexander Graf[off-list ref] writes:quoted
quoted
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S index 1abe478..e0229dd 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_segment.S@@ -161,9 +161,14 @@ kvmppc_handler_trampoline_enter_end:.global kvmppc_handler_trampoline_exit kvmppc_handler_trampoline_exit: +#if defined(CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_HV) +.global kvmppc_interrupt_pr +kvmppc_interrupt_pr: + ld r9, HSTATE_SCRATCH2(r13) +#else .global kvmppc_interrupt kvmppc_interrupt:Just always call it kvmppc_interrupt_pr and thus share at least that part of the code :).But if i don't have HV enabled, we don't compile book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S Hence don't have the kvmppc_interrupt symbol defined.Ah, because we're always jumping to kvmppc_interrupt. Can we make this slightly less magical? How about we always call kvmppc_interrupt_hv when CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_HV_POSSIBLE and always kvmppc_interrupt_pr when CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_PR_POSSIBLE and then branch to kvmppc_interrupt_pr from kvmppc_interrupt_hv? IMHO that would make the code flow more obvious.To make sure I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is to update __KVM_HANDLER to call kvmppc_interupt_pr when HV is not enabled ?
Yes, I think that makes the code flow more obvious. Every function always has the same name regardless of config options then. Alex