On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:49:27 +1000 Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 18:10:48 +0530 > Mahesh Jagannath Salgaonkar <mah...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On 03/14/2017 02:53 PM, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > Looks like we are not winding up.. Shouldn't we ? What if we may end up > > in pnv_wakeup_noloss() which assumes that no GPRs are lost. Am I missing > > anything ? > > Hmm, on second look, I don't think any non-volatile GPRs are overwritten > in this path. But this MCE is a slow path, and it is a much longer path > than the system reset idle wakeup... So I'll add the napstatelost with > a comment. On third look, I'll just add the comment. The windup does not restore non-volatile GPRs either, and in general we're careful not to use them in exception handlers. So I think it's okay. Thanks, Nick
