From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=3oxj=QS=lists.ozlabs.org=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC10CC282C2
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 01:21:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 381BC2084D
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 01:21:28 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 381BC2084D
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3])
	by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43ySfs6thPzDqNX
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:21:25 +1100 (AEDT)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=permerror (mailfrom)
 smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org (client-ip=63.228.1.57;
 helo=gate.crashing.org; envelope-from=benh@kernel.crashing.org;
 receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)
 header.from=kernel.crashing.org
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43yScv6l9szDqKj
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:19:43 +1100 (AEDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id x1B0UtG5017871;
 Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:30:56 -0600
Message-ID: <c2d6938902656f2829be8077c656cee9235c21b1.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix 32-bit KVM-PR lockup and panic with MacOS
 guest
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk>, Christophe Leroy
 <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>, paulus@samba.org,
 mpe@ellerman.id.au, npiggin@gmail.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:30:54 +1100
In-Reply-To: <2ed8efb9-5cd4-31bf-6c7b-501b9d1925e6@ilande.co.uk>
References: <20190208143319.11980-1-mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk>
 <41b02fb0-cdc6-6de0-d8fc-44d3d0a8ad70@c-s.fr>
 <2ed8efb9-5cd4-31bf-6c7b-501b9d1925e6@ilande.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.4 (3.30.4-1.fc29) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
 <linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>

On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 14:51 +0000, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> 
> Indeed, but there are still some questions to be asked here:
> 
> 1) Why were these bits removed from the original bitmask in the first place without
> it being documented in the commit message?
> 
> 2) Is this the right fix? I'm told that MacOS guests already run without this patch
> on a G5 under 64-bit KVM-PR which may suggest that this is a workaround for another
> bug elsewhere in the 32-bit powerpc code.
> 
> 
> If you think that these points don't matter, then I'm happy to resubmit the patch
> as-is based upon your comments above.

We should write a test case to verify that FE0/FE1 are properly
preserved/context-switched etc... I bet if we accidentally wiped them,
we wouldn't notice 99.9% of the time.

Cheers,
Ben.