[PATCH v3] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Add missing mappings for tracing exits

Gautam Menghani posted 1 patch 1 month ago
arch/powerpc/kvm/trace_book3s.h | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
[PATCH v3] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Add missing mappings for tracing exits
Posted by Gautam Menghani 1 month ago
The macro kvm_trace_symbol_exit is used for providing the mappings
for the trap vectors and their names. Add mappings for H_FAC_UNAVAIL and
RETURN_TO_HOST so that trap reasons are displayed as string instead of
vector numbers when using the kvm_guest_exit tracepoint.

Reviewed-by: Harsh Prateek Bora <harshpb@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Amit Machhiwal <amachhiw@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Vaibhav Jain (IBM) <vaibhav@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Gautam Menghani <gautam@linux.ibm.com>
---
v2:
1. Remove the trailing comma after last element

v3:
1. Add the mapping for 0x0

 arch/powerpc/kvm/trace_book3s.h | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/trace_book3s.h b/arch/powerpc/kvm/trace_book3s.h
index 9260ddbd557f..4ee35c6d01aa 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/trace_book3s.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/trace_book3s.h
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
  */
 
 #define kvm_trace_symbol_exit \
+	{0x0, "RETURN_TO_HOST"}, \
 	{0x100, "SYSTEM_RESET"}, \
 	{0x200, "MACHINE_CHECK"}, \
 	{0x300, "DATA_STORAGE"}, \
@@ -28,6 +29,7 @@
 	{0xea0, "H_VIRT"}, \
 	{0xf00, "PERFMON"}, \
 	{0xf20, "ALTIVEC"}, \
-	{0xf40, "VSX"}
+	{0xf40, "VSX"}, \
+	{0xf80, "H_FAC_UNAVAIL"}
 
 #endif
-- 
2.53.0
Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Add missing mappings for tracing exits
Posted by Ritesh Harjani (IBM) 1 month ago
Gautam Menghani <gautam@linux.ibm.com> writes:

> The macro kvm_trace_symbol_exit is used for providing the mappings
> for the trap vectors and their names. Add mappings for H_FAC_UNAVAIL and
> RETURN_TO_HOST so that trap reasons are displayed as string instead of
> vector numbers when using the kvm_guest_exit tracepoint.
>

LGTM. Please feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>

Minor nit: It's generally simpler for everyone to keep the related
patches belonging to a common maintainer tree in one series. For
example, we could have grouped patch [1] with the current patch into one
series to keep them together.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20260511080412.50722-1-Gautam.Menghani@ibm.com/

-ritesh