On Thu, 2016-06-30 at 18:01 +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> +static uint32_t ppc_hash64_pte_size_decode(PowerPCCPU *cpu, uint64_t
> pte0,
> + uint64_t pte1, uint32_t
> slb_pshift)
> {
> - switch (slb_pshift) {
> - case 12:
> - return 12;
> - case 16:
> - if ((pte1 & 0xf000) == 0x1000) {
> - return 16;
> - }
> - return 0;
> - case 24:
> - if ((pte1 & 0xff000) == 0) {
> - return 24;
> - }
> - return 0;
> - }
> - return 0;
> + unsigned spshift;
> +
> + return ppc_hash64_hpte_page_shift_noslb(cpu, pte0, pte1,
> &spshift);
> }
Why not call ppc_hash64_hpte_page_shift_noslb() directly from the call
site ? That or rename it to ppc_hash64_pte_size_decode :-)
Otherwise yes, your patch looks correct as in what
doesppc_hash64_hpte_page_shift_noslb() is definitely more correct than
what ppc_hash64_pte_size_decode() is doing.
Cheers,
Ben.
