On 05.06.14 14:21, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05.06.14 14:08, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
We don't have SMT support yet, hence we should not find a doorbell
message generated
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_emulate.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_emulate.c
b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_emulate.c
index 1bb16a59dcbc..d6c87d085182 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_emulate.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_emulate.c
@@ -28,7 +28,9 @@
#define OP_19_XOP_RFI 50
#define OP_31_XOP_MFMSR 83
+#define OP_31_XOP_MSGSNDP 142
#define OP_31_XOP_MTMSR 146
+#define OP_31_XOP_MSGCLRP 174
#define OP_31_XOP_MTMSRD 178
#define OP_31_XOP_MTSR 210
#define OP_31_XOP_MTSRIN 242
@@ -303,6 +305,22 @@ int kvmppc_core_emulate_op_pr(struct kvm_run
*run, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
break;
}
+ case OP_31_XOP_MSGSNDP:
+ {
+ /*
+ * PR KVM still don't support SMT mode. So we should
still?
+ * not see a MSGSNDP/MSGCLRP used with PR KVM
+ */
+ pr_info("KVM: MSGSNDP used in non SMT case\n");
+ emulated = EMULATE_FAIL;
What would happen on an HV guest with only 1 thread that MSGSNDs to
thread 0? Would the guest get an illegal instruction trap, a
self-interrupt or would this be a simple nop?
What I'm trying to say here is that it's ok to treat it as illegal
instructions, but then we don't need this patch :).
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
