[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150414082448.GR6186@cbox>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 10:24:48 +0200
From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
To: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, marc.zyngier@....com,
peter.maydell@...aro.org, agraf@...e.de, drjones@...hat.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, zhichao.huang@...aro.org,
jan.kiszka@...mens.com, dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
r65777@...escale.com, bp@...e.de,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE..." <x86@...nel.org>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
Bharat Bhushan <Bharat.Bhushan@...escale.com>,
Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman@...escale.com>,
Nadav Amit <namit@...technion.ac.il>,
"open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC..." <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:ABI/API" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] KVM: define common __KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_SW/HW_BP
values
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 03:51:33PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 04:08:00PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> >> Currently x86, powerpc and soon arm64 use the same two architecture
> >> specific bits for guest debug support for software and hardware
> >> breakpoints. This makes the shared values explicit while leaving the
> >> gate open for another architecture to use some other value if they
> >> really really want to.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >> index ab4d473..1731569 100644
> >> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >> @@ -310,8 +310,8 @@ struct kvm_guest_debug_arch {
> >> * and upper 16 bits are architecture specific. Architecture specific defines
> >> * that ioctl is for setting hardware breakpoint or software breakpoint.
> >> */
> >> -#define KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_SW_BP 0x00010000
> >> -#define KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP 0x00020000
> >> +#define KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_SW_BP __KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_SW_BP
> >> +#define KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP __KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP
> >>
> >> /* definition of registers in kvm_run */
> >> struct kvm_sync_regs {
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >> index d7dcef5..1438202 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >> @@ -250,8 +250,8 @@ struct kvm_debug_exit_arch {
> >> __u64 dr7;
> >> };
> >>
> >> -#define KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_SW_BP 0x00010000
> >> -#define KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP 0x00020000
> >> +#define KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_SW_BP __KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_SW_BP
> >> +#define KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP __KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP
> >> #define KVM_GUESTDBG_INJECT_DB 0x00040000
> >> #define KVM_GUESTDBG_INJECT_BP 0x00080000
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> >> index 5eedf84..ce2db14 100644
> >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> >> @@ -525,8 +525,16 @@ struct kvm_s390_irq {
> >>
> >> /* for KVM_SET_GUEST_DEBUG */
> >>
> >> -#define KVM_GUESTDBG_ENABLE 0x00000001
> >> -#define KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP 0x00000002
> >> +#define KVM_GUESTDBG_ENABLE (1 << 0)
> >> +#define KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP (1 << 1)
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * Architecture specific stuff uses the top 16 bits of the field,
> >
> > can you be more specific than 'stuff' here? features?
> >
> >> + * however there is some shared commonality for the common cases
> >
> > I don't like this sentence; shared commonality is a pleonasm and the use
> > of however makes it sounds like there's some caveat here.
>
> OK I can see that - after I looked it up ;-)
>
> > If the top 16 bits are indeed arhictecture specific, then I think they
> > should just be defined in their architecture specific headers. Unless
> > the idea here is that there's a fixed set of of flags that architectures
> > can choose to support, in which case it should simply be defined in the
> > common header.
>
> Well an architecture might not support some features and want to use
> those bits for something else? I didn't want to force the bottom two
> of the architecture specific bits to wasted if the features don't exist.
>
In that case I think the definition is local to each architecture and
should indeed just be duplicated. The __ definitions complicate more
than they help as they are exported to userspace etc. The KVM
maintainers may have a different view on this though.
-Christoffer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists