[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190803183335.149e0113@why>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2019 18:34:20 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] KVM: arm64: Provide a PV_TIME device to user space
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 13:51:13 +0100
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
[forgot that one]
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:50:14 +0100
> Steven Price <steven.price@....com> wrote:
[...]
> > +static int __init kvm_pvtime_init(void)
> > +{
> > + kvm_register_device_ops(&pvtime_ops, KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PV_TIME);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +late_initcall(kvm_pvtime_init);
Why is it an initcall? So far, the only initcall we've used is the one
that initializes KVM itself. Can't we just the device_ops just like we
do for the vgic?
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists