Hi Michael,
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:16:31 +1000 Michael Ellerman
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 02:05:39PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:47:56 +1000 Michael Ellerman
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > -void tm_unavailable_exception(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > +void faci
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 02:05:39PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:47:56 +1000 Michael Ellerman
> wrote:
> >
> > -void tm_unavailable_exception(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +void facility_unavailable_exception(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > {
> > + static char
Hi Michael,
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:47:56 +1000 Michael Ellerman
wrote:
>
> -void tm_unavailable_exception(struct pt_regs *regs)
> +void facility_unavailable_exception(struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> + static char *facility_strings[] = {
> + "FPU",
> + "VMX/VSX",
> +
From: Michael Ellerman
The exception at 0xf60 is not the TM (Transactional Memory) unavailable
exception, it is the "Facility Unavailable Exception", rename it as
such.
Flesh out the handler to acknowledge the fact that it can be called for
many reasons, one of which is TM being unavailable.
Us
