[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eb0def39-efcf-52ac-ce46-5982e8555dc1@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 10:02:52 -0500
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: mark.rutland@....com, jpoimboe@...hat.com, jthierry@...hat.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/8] arm64: Implement frame types
On 3/19/21 9:40 AM, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>> Are you referring to ARMv8.1 VHE extension where the kernel can run
>> at EL2? Could you elaborate? I thought that EL2 was basically for
>> Hypervisors.
> KVM is the main case, yes - IIRC otherwise it's mainly error handlers
> but I might be missing something. We do recommend that the kernel is
> started at EL2 where possible.
>
> Actually now I look again it's just not adding anything on EL2 entries
> at all, they use a separate set of macros which aren't updated - this
> will only update things for EL0 and EL1 entries so my comment above
> about this tracking EL2 as EL1 isn't accurate.
So, do I need to do anything here?
Madhavan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists