On Thu, 15 May 2025 15:07:18 +0200 "Christoph Schlameuss" <schlameuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu May 15, 2025 at 1:24 PM CEST, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: > > On Wed, 14 May 2025 18:34:50 +0200 > > Christoph Schlameuss <schlameuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Instead of allocating a BSCA and upgrading it for PV or when adding the > >> 65th cpu we can always use the ESCA. > >> > >> The only downside of the change is that we will always allocate 4 pages > >> for a 248 cpu ESCA instead of a single page for the BSCA per VM. > >> In return we can delete a bunch of checks and special handling depending > >> on the SCA type as well as the whole BSCA to ESCA conversion. > >> > >> As a fallback we can still run without SCA entries when the SIGP > >> interpretation facility is not available. > > > > s/is/or BSCA are/ > > > > With this merged we do no longer care for the BSCA. So I will change this to > s/is/or ESCA are/ that was a typo, I meant ESCA, of course :) > > I will also apply the other changes for the next version. But I will wait for > more feedback before sending that. And I will run checkpatch with the strict > option, which I clearly did not do. > > [...]
