[RFC PATCH 06/11] kvm: powerpc: book3s: Add is_hv_enabled to kvmppc_ops

[Alexander Graf]

On 09/30/2013 06:20 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Alexander Graf<agraf at suse.de>  writes:
>
>> On 09/30/2013 02:56 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>> Alexander Graf<agraf at suse.de>   writes:
>>>
>>>> On 27.09.2013, at 15:03, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alexander Graf<agraf at suse.de>   writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
> Something like this ( btw non tested )

Yes :).


Alex