On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 05:20:05PM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
On 17/06/16 09:33, Chris Smart wrote:
[snip]
+
+ /*
+ * ISA 3.0 (such as P9) copy, copy_first, paste and paste_last alignment
+ * check.
+ *
+ * Send a SIGBUS to the process that caused the fault.
+ *
+ * We do not emulate these because paste may contain additional metadata
+ * when pasting to a co-processor. Furthermore, paste_last is the
+ * synchronisation point for preceding copy/paste sequences.
+ */
+ if ((instruction & 0xfc0006fe) == PPC_INST_COPY)
+ return -EIO;
Should this all be under cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ARCH_300)?
I'm not sure we should or not. That instruction only exists on those
machines so is it worth adding an additional check when the next check
will fail anyway?
I guess it would reduce non ISA 3.0 machines to just a single check rather
than two, but increases ISO 3.0 machines to three.
I defer to the wisdom of others.
-c
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
