On 01/23/2013 04:41:27 PM, David Gibson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:52:54AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 01/22/2013 11:04:59 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> >- cap_hior = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_PPC_HIOR);
> >+ /* This capability is misnamed - it was introduced with the
> >+ * KVM_SET_ONE_REG ioctl(), which at the time only supported
the
> >+ * HIOR. We don't want a different capability for every
register
> >+ * the interface can support though. */
> >+ cap_one_reg = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_PPC_HIOR);
>
> So what happens when we want to use onereg for booke, which doesn't
> have KVM_CAP_PPC_HIOR? Into what variable would we put a check for
> KVM_CAP_ONE_REG?
Drat, good point. There is no KVM_CAP_ONE_REG, that's the problem. I
guess I'll have to leave cap_hior as it is, and just not have a
capability check.
Hmm? There is a KVM_CAP_ONE_REG. Its value is 70. It was introduced
in Linux commit e24ed81fedd551e80378be62fa0b0532480ea7d4, at the same
time as the ONE_REG ioctls themselves.
> IMHO this should stay as cap_hior and merge the above comment with
> the comment where you check cap_hior, regarding not all registers
> necessarily being supported.
I'm not sure quite what you mean by this.
Later on you say that you don't check for failure when accessing those
registers -- that seems to be the place for a comment about not wanting
to check a different capability for each one.
-Scott
