Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: Make EPCR a valid field for booke64 and bookehv

From: Scott Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:47:08 -0600

On 12/01/2012 07:58:25 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> In BookE, EPCR is defined and valid when either the HV or the 64bit
> category are implemented. Reflect this in the field definition.
>=20
> Today the only KVM target on 64bit is HV enabled, so there is no
> change in actual source code, but this keeps the code closer to the
> spec and doesn't build up artificial road blocks for a PR KVM
> on 64bit.
[snip]
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <[email-masked]>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h |    9 +++++++--
>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>=20
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h =20
> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 62fbd38..3480526 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -405,14 +405,19 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_KVM_BOOKE_HV
>  	u32 host_mas4;
>  	u32 host_mas6;
> -	u32 shadow_epcr;
> -	u32 epcr;
>  	u32 shadow_msrp;
>  	u32 eplc;
>  	u32 epsc;
>  	u32 oldpir;
>  #endif
>=20
> +#if defined(CONFIG_BOOKE)
> +#if defined(CONFIG_KVM_BOOKE_HV) || defined(CONFIG_64BIT)
> +	u32 shadow_epcr;
> +	u32 epcr;
> +#endif
> +#endif

On a PR-mode implementation, why would we be have a shadow_epcr?  It =20
would always be set based on the host kernel, just like when running =20
any other userspace process.

-Scott=