On 08/14/2015 08:22 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Thu, 2015-08-06 at 18:54 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 08/04/2015 03:27 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>> On Mon, 2015-13-07 at 08:16:06 UTC, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>>> This patch enables facility unavailable exceptions for generic facility, >>>> FPU, ALTIVEC and VSX in /proc/interrupts listing by incrementing their >>>> newly added IRQ statistical counters as and when these exceptions happen. >>>> This also adds couple of helper functions which will be called from within >>>> the interrupt handler context to update their statistics. Similarly this >>>> patch also enables alignment and program check exceptions as well. >>> >>> ... >>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/exceptions-64s.S >>>> b/arch/powerpc/kernel/exceptions-64s.S >>>> index 0a0399c2..a86180c 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/exceptions-64s.S >>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/exceptions-64s.S >>>> @@ -1158,6 +1158,7 @@ BEGIN_FTR_SECTION >>>> END_FTR_SECTION_IFSET(CPU_FTR_TM) >>>> #endif >>>> bl load_up_fpu >>>> + bl fpu_unav_exceptions_count >>> >>> Is it safe to call C code here? >> >> Hmm, is it not ? I had that question but was not really sure. Dont >> understand the difference between 'fast_exception_return' and >> 'ret_from_except' completely. > > If you're "not really sure" it's correct, please say so in the change log!
Yeah I should have written that up some where after the commit message (after "---"). Its my bad, will take care of this next time around. > > I'd rather you didn't send me patches with possibly subtle bugs in core code. Michael, I understand your concern. I was just trying to add new entries in there which would help us. Wondering whats our plan for this patch, if we change it as I had proposed earlier, will it be good enough. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
