[PATCH -V4 11/12] arch/powerpc: properly offset the context bits for 1T segemnts

[Aneesh Kumar K.V]

Paul Mackerras <paulus at samba.org> writes:

> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:28:04PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> 
>> We should do rldimi r10,r9,USER_ESID_BITS,0 only after populating
>> r10 with ESID bits.
>
> This needs a lot more explanation as to what the problem is that this
> patch aims to fix.  Is it a problem today without your other patches,
> or is it introduced by previous patches?
>
> In any case I think there is an error in the patch, see below...
>
>>  0:	/* user address: proto-VSID = context << 15 | ESID. First check
>> @@ -155,13 +157,16 @@ END_MMU_FTR_SECTION_IFCLR(MMU_FTR_1T_SEGMENT)
>>  	ld	r9,PACACONTEXTID(r13)
>>  BEGIN_FTR_SECTION
>>  	cmpldi	r10,0x1000
>> +	bge	9f
>>  END_MMU_FTR_SECTION_IFSET(MMU_FTR_1T_SEGMENT)
>>  	rldimi	r10,r9,USER_ESID_BITS,0
>> +	b	slb_finish_load
>>  BEGIN_FTR_SECTION
>> -	bge	slb_finish_load_1T
>> +9:
>> +	srdi	r10,r10,40-28		/* get 1T ESID */
>> +	rldimi	r10,r9,USER_ESID_BITS,0
>
> Shouldn't this one be USER_ESID_BITS_1T?  And in that case, since
> USER_ESID_BITS == USER_ESID_BITS_1T + 12, I think the patch would
> then introduce no change in behaviour (other than being slightly
> slower than the current code).  Or am I missing something? -- in
> that case we really need a longer and better explanation with the
> patch.

Ok I missed that we used USER_ESID_BITS there. This patch can be
dropped. I looked at the 1T code, and assumed that we were wrongly
shifting the context bits there.

-aneesh