On 18.07.2011, at 20:06, Scott Wood wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:30:51 +0200 > Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 18.07.2011, at 18:12, Scott Wood wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:16:10 +0200 >>> Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 08.07.2011, at 01:41, Scott Wood wrote: >>>> >>>>> It should contain the way, not the absolute TLB0 index. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <[email protected]> >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_tlb.c | 3 +++ >>>>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_tlb.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_tlb.c >>>>> index 13c432e..2e99d66 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_tlb.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_tlb.c >>>>> @@ -788,6 +788,9 @@ int kvmppc_e500_emul_tlbsx(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int >>>>> rb) >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> if (gtlbe) { >>>>> + if (tlbsel == 0) >>>>> + esel &= KVM_E500_TLB0_WAY_NUM - 1; >>>> >>>> Is it guaranteed that MAS0_ESEL always returns at most the TLB1 index nr? >>> >>> What's the relevance of TLB1 here? >>> >>> For TLB0, esel is supposed to contain the way, not the index into the full >>> TLB. >> >> Well, for both esel is supposed to contain the way, just that for TLB1 it >> happens to be the index, or am I misunderstanding something here? >> The question was basically why we need to mask out on TLB0, but not on TLB1. > > It would be a no-op on TLB1, because there's only one "set".
I guess I'm merely not understanding why we have the non-way bits set in TLB0 entries, but not in TLB1 ones :). Do we pass in the real array index? Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
