On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 18:52 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > On Apr 29, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > Kumar Gala writes: > > > >> We need to have unique transfer_to_handler paths for each exception > >> level > >> that is supported. We need to use the proper xSRR0/1 depending on > >> which > >> exception level the interrupt was from. The macro conversion lets up > >> templatize this code path. > > > > It seems to me that this implies you are assuming that you will never > > ever get a synchronous normal interrupt such as a TLB miss while you > > are in a critical or machine check handler. > > Grr.. one more thing to fix :) > > > Wouldn't it be better and safer to have the exception prolog for > > critical interrupts save SRR0/1 in the stack frame, and have the > > prolog for machine checks save SRR0/1 and CSRR0/1 likewise? > > If we do this I guess we can use SRR0/1 regardless of which level we > came from.
Also consider saving/restoring MAS Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
