|
From: | Scott Wood |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH 3/5] target-ppc: Synchronize more SPRs to KVM using ONE_REG interface |
Date: | Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:20:43 -0600 |
On 01/23/2013 04:41:27 PM, David Gibson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:52:54AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > On 01/22/2013 11:04:59 PM, David Gibson wrote: > >- cap_hior = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_PPC_HIOR); > >+ /* This capability is misnamed - it was introduced with the> >+ * KVM_SET_ONE_REG ioctl(), which at the time only supported the > >+ * HIOR. We don't want a different capability for every register> >+ * the interface can support though. */ > >+ cap_one_reg = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_PPC_HIOR); > > So what happens when we want to use onereg for booke, which doesn't > have KVM_CAP_PPC_HIOR? Into what variable would we put a check for > KVM_CAP_ONE_REG? Drat, good point. There is no KVM_CAP_ONE_REG, that's the problem. I guess I'll have to leave cap_hior as it is, and just not have a capability check.
Hmm? There is a KVM_CAP_ONE_REG. Its value is 70. It was introduced in Linux commit e24ed81fedd551e80378be62fa0b0532480ea7d4, at the same time as the ONE_REG ioctls themselves.
> IMHO this should stay as cap_hior and merge the above comment with > the comment where you check cap_hior, regarding not all registers > necessarily being supported. I'm not sure quite what you mean by this.
Later on you say that you don't check for failure when accessing those registers -- that seems to be the place for a comment about not wanting to check a different capability for each one.
-Scott
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |