On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 21:21 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Ah you are right. I do have second thoughts about that previous patch > now that you mention it however. In the real MSR, HV and PR are > independant, I wonder if I'm better off making the check explicit... > > The reason I did it this way is that afaik, there is no such thing > as a usermode hypervisor resource in the architecture, so any > hypervisor resource is also a supervisor mode one, but having > ctx->hv be 0 when MSR:HV=1 + MSR:PR=1 might make it easy to write > incorrect code in other places when deciding for example how to > direct > interrupts. > > I'll need to think a bit more about this one.
So I took out that bit in the previous patch, since we already seem to check ctx.pr explicitly in most places anyway. There was one where we didn't which I fixed (in the SMT ops). Cheers, Ben.
