On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 13:52 +1100, Michael Neuling wrote:
> Not sure I understand this.. should it be merged with the last patch?
>
Its all going to have to be one patch - I've left it split out to make
it more obvious which bits have had to mess with, this series
absolutely doesn't bisect.
> Needs a comment here.
>
>
> On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 11:22 +1100, Cyril Bur wrote:
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c | 24 +++++-------------------
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
> > index ea75da0fd506..574b05fe7d66 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
> > @@ -1027,27 +1027,13 @@ static inline void __switch_to_tm(struct
> > task_struct *prev,
> > struct task_struct *new)
> > {
> > /*
> > - * So, with the rework none of this code should not be needed.
> > - * I've left in the reclaim for now. This *should* save us
> > - * from any mistake in the new code. Also the
> > - * enabling/disabling logic of MSR_TM really should be
> > + * The enabling/disabling logic of MSR_TM really should be
> > * refactored into a common way with MSR_{FP,VEC,VSX}
> > */
> > - if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_TM)) {
> > - if (tm_enabled(prev) || tm_enabled(new))
> > - tm_enable();
> > -
> > - if (tm_enabled(prev)) {
> > - prev->thread.load_tm++;
> > - tm_reclaim_task(prev);
> > - /*
> > - * The disabling logic may be confused don't
> > - * disable for now
> > - *
> > - * if (!MSR_TM_ACTIVE(prev->thread.regs->msr) &&
> > prev->thread.load_tm == 0)
> > - * prev->thread.regs->msr &= ~MSR_TM;
> > - */
> > - }
> > + if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_TM) && tm_enabled(prev)) {
> > + prev->thread.load_tm++;
> > + if (!MSR_TM_ACTIVE(prev->thread.regs->msr) &&
> > prev->thread.load_tm == 0)
> > + prev->thread.regs->msr &= ~MSR_TM;
> > }
> > }
> >
