On 03/17/2016 03:45 AM, David Gibson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:08:19AM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote: >> On 03/16/2016 02:19 AM, David Gibson wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:11:31AM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote: >>>> On 03/15/2016 01:39 AM, David Gibson wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 05:56:23PM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote: >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a first mini-serie of patches adding support for new ppc SPRs. >>>>>> They were taken from Ben's larger patchset adding the ppc powernv >>>>>> platform and they should already be useful for the pseries guest >>>>>> migration. >>>>>> >>>>>> Initial patches come from : >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/ozbenh/qemu/commits/powernv >>>>>> >>>>>> The changes are mostly due to the rebase on Dave's 2.6 branch: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/dgibson/qemu/commits/ppc-for-2.6 >>>>>> >>>>>> A couple more are bisect and checkpatch fixes and finally some patches >>>>>> were merge to reduce the noise. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The patchset is also available here: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/legoater/qemu/commits/for-2.6 >>>>>> >>>>>> It was quickly tested with a pseries guest using KVM and TCG. >>>>> >>>>> Hmm.. do these all fix bugs with migration, or only some of them? >>>> >>>> Probably only some. >>>> >>>> Initially, Thomas gave a shorter list which I expanded to a larger one >>>> because of dependencies between patches and I didn't want to change too >>>> much what Ben had sent. You had also reviewed a few. >>>> >>>>> The relevance is that things to fix migration should go into 2.6, but >>>>> preparation work for powernv that doesn't fix bug shouldn't really be >>>>> going in now, after the soft freeze and will need to wait for 2.7. >>>> >>>> OK. I will rework and keep the rest for 2.7. >>> >>> So, I'm ok with including (low risk) patches that aren't directly >>> relevant to 2.6 if they're prereqs for patches that are relevant to >>> 2.6. After all, reworking the patches isn't risk free either. Please >>> mention why these patches are being included in the commit messages >>> though. >> >> Sure. >> >>>> Thomas, thanks for the review. I have identified a few things I need >>>> to work on but may be, the patchset is still too large for 2.6 ? >>> >>> It's not really a question of being too large, it's that I'm nervous >>> about applying patches which touch the core translation code >>> (e.g. fixes to HV mode tests) during soft freeze if they're not >>> addressing a bug that's relevant to 2.6. >> >> Could you please take a look at these two patches to see if they are >> relevant for 2.6 ? From my readings, they seem to be the only ones on >> the edge. >> >> 06/17 ppc: Create cpu_ppc_set_papr() helper >> 11/17 ppc: Initialize AMOR in PAPR mode > > Ok, I've replied to each of those. > >> but it makes sense to take them if we take : >> >> 12/17 ppc: Fix writing to AMR/UAMOR (move hunk to 13) > > I'm not seeing a lot of cause to put this in for 2.6. The registers > in question are already linked up to KVM, so migration should be ok, > and I don't believe we have real use cases which are hitting the bugs > this patch fixes. Except... > >> 13/17 ppc: Add POWER8 IAMR register (rework hunk) > > ..that I guess it's kind of a pre-req for this one, which could fix real > migration bugs.
Yes. So, I will send a v3 removing the LPCR changes in the cpu_ppc_set_papr() helper. How does that sound ? Thanks, C.
