On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 06:24, Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 4/29/19 10:41 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 05:05, Richard Henderson > > <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> Most of the existing users would continue around a loop which > >> would fault the tlb entry in via a normal load/store. But for > >> SVE we have a true non-faulting case which requires the new > >> probing form of tlb_fill. > > > > So am I right in thinking that this fixes a bug where we > > previously would mark a load as faulted if the memory happened > > not to be in the TLB, whereas now we will correctly pull in the > > TLB entry and do the load ? > > Yes. > > > (Since guest code ought to be handling the "non-first-load > > faulted" case by looping round or otherwise arranging to > > retry, nothing in practice would have noticed this bug, right?) > > Yes. > > The only case with changed behaviour is (expected to be) SVE no-fault, where > the loop you mention would have produced different incorrect results.
OK. If we're fixing a guest-visible bug it would be nice to describe that in the commit message. thanks -- PMM
