Hi Nick, > +maybe_skip: > + cmpwi r12,0x200 > + beq 1f > + cmpwi r12,0x300 > + beq 1f > + cmpwi r12,0x380 > + beq 1f > +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_HV_POSSIBLE > + /* XXX: cbe stuff? instruction breakpoint? */ > + cmpwi r12,0xe02 > + beq 2f > +#endif > + b no_skip > +1: mfspr r9,SPRN_SRR0 > + addi r9,r9,4 > + mtspr SPRN_SRR0,r9 > + ld r12,HSTATE_SCRATCH0(r13) > + ld r9,HSTATE_SCRATCH2(r13) > + GET_SCRATCH0(r13) > + RFI_TO_KERNEL > +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_HV_POSSIBLE > +2: mfspr r9,SPRN_HSRR0 > + addi r9,r9,4 > + mtspr SPRN_HSRR0,r9 > + ld r12,HSTATE_SCRATCH0(r13) > + ld r9,HSTATE_SCRATCH2(r13) > + GET_SCRATCH0(r13) > + HRFI_TO_KERNEL > +#endif
If I understand correctly, label 1 is the kvmppc_skip_interrupt and label 2 is the kvmppc_skip_Hinterrupt. Would it be easier to understand if we used symbolic labels, or do you think the RFI_TO_KERNEL vs HRFI_TO_KERNEL and other changes are sufficient? Apart from that, I haven't checked the precise copy-paste to make sure nothing has changed by accident, but I am able to follow the general idea of the patch and am vigorously in favour of anything that simplifies our exception/interrupt paths! Kind regards, Daniel > -- > 2.23.0
