Dan,
What's your opinion about this patch?
Thanks
-Anthony
>-----Original Message-----
>From: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Xu, Anthony
>Sent: 2005年11月28日 11:22
>To: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
>Cc: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] fully virtualize psr and ipsr on
>non-VTIdomain
>
>Dan,
>This patch is intended to fully virtualize psr and ipsr on non-VTI
>domain.
>Following things are done in this patch.
>1, previously when guest reads psr, it always get psr dt rt it equal to
>1. that is because HV doesn't restore these information,
>metaphysical_mode can't present all these information. I save these
>information into privregs->vpsr. Thus guest can get correct information
>about dt, rt and it.
>2, when guest reads psr, we should only return low 32bits and 35 and 36
>bits, previously return all bits.
>3, when guest rsm and ssm psr, HV rsm and ssm some bits of current psr
>which is used by HV, that is not correct, guest rsm and ssm should only
>impact guest psr(that is regs->ipsr).
>4, mistakenly uses guest DCR, guest DCR should impact guest psr when
>injecting interruption into guest, but not impact guest ipsr.
>When injecting interruption into guest,The current implementation is
> Guest ipsr.be=guest dcr.be
> Guest ipsr.pp=guest dcr.pp
>Correct implementation should be,
> Guest psr.be=guest dcr.be
> Guest psr.pp=guest dcr.pp.
>
>Because of above modifications, I turn off FAST_RFI, FAST_BREAK and
>FAST_ACCESS_REFLECT.
>
>Signed-off-by Anthony Xu < anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>One question, why do we need to virtualize guest psr.pp and always set
>guest psr.pp to 1?
>
>Thanks
>-Anthony
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
Home