On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 10:25 -0500, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote:

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 3:21 PM
To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6 v2] KVM: PPC: Book3E: Use common defines for
SPE/FP/AltiVec int numbers


On 30.06.14 17:34, Mihai Caraman wrote:

quoted

Use common BOOKE_IRQPRIO and BOOKE_INTERRUPT defines for SPE/FP/AltiVec
which share the same interrupt numbers.

Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <redacted>
---
v2:
  - remove outdated definitions

  arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h    |  8 --------
  arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c              | 17 +++++++++--------
  arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.h              |  4 ++--
  arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_interrupts.S   |  9 +++++----
  arch/powerpc/kvm/bookehv_interrupts.S |  4 ++--
  arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.c               | 10 ++++++----
  arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c       | 10 ++++++----
  7 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h

b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h

quoted

index 9601741..c94fd33 100644

--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_asm.h

@@ -56,14 +56,6 @@
  /* E500 */
  #define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL 32
  #define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST 33
-/*
- * TODO: Unify 32-bit and 64-bit kernel exception handlers to use same

defines

quoted

- */
-#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_UNAVAIL

BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL

quoted

-#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA

BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST

quoted

-#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL

BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL

quoted

-#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_ASSIST \
-				BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST

I think I'd prefer to keep them separate.

What is the reason from changing your mind from ver 1? Do you want to have
different defines with same values (we specifically mapped them to the
hardware interrupt numbers). We already upstreamed the necessary changes
in the kernel. Scott, please share your opinion here.

I don't like hiding the fact that they're the same number, which could
lead to wrong code in the absence of ifdefs that strictly mutually
exclude SPE and Altivec code -- there was an instance of this with
MSR_VEC versus MSR_SPE in a previous patchset.
 

quoted

quoted

  #define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_ROUND 34
  #define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_PERFORMANCE_MONITOR 35
  #define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DOORBELL 36

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
index ab62109..3c86d9b 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c

@@ -388,8 +388,8 @@ static int kvmppc_booke_irqprio_deliver(struct

kvm_vcpu *vcpu,

quoted

  	case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_ITLB_MISS:
  	case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SYSCALL:
  	case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_FP_UNAVAIL:
-	case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_UNAVAIL:
-	case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_FP_DATA:
+	case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL:
+	case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST:

#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_E500V2
   case ...SPE:
#else
   case ..ALTIVEC:
#endif

I don't think that's an improvement.

-Scott