On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 05:20:43PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > 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.
*facepalm* So there is. I'm an idiot, I don't know how I missed that,
sorry. I'll rework accordingly.
> >> 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
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
