[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <798ecbb0-f369-f3e7-ad50-78acfd902d1d@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 15:02:15 +0800
From: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
To: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhaosl@...il.com>,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu
Cc: maz@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/21] KVM: arm64: Support SDEI_EVENT_CONTEXT hypercall
Hi Shannon,
On 1/11/22 5:43 PM, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> On 2021/8/15 8:13, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> +static unsigned long kvm_sdei_hypercall_context(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> + struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
>> + struct kvm_sdei_kvm *ksdei = kvm->arch.sdei;
>> + struct kvm_sdei_vcpu *vsdei = vcpu->arch.sdei;
>> + struct kvm_sdei_vcpu_regs *regs;
>> + unsigned long index = smccc_get_arg1(vcpu);
>> + unsigned long ret = SDEI_SUCCESS;
>> +
>> + /* Sanity check */
>> + if (!(ksdei && vsdei)) {
>> + ret = SDEI_NOT_SUPPORTED;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
> Maybe we could move these common sanity check codes to kvm_sdei_hypercall to save some lines.
>
Not all hypercalls need this check. For example, COMPLETE/COMPLETE_RESUME/CONTEXT don't
have SDEI event number as the argument. If we really want move this check into function
kvm_sdei_hypercall(), we would have code like below. Too much duplicated snippets will
be seen. I don't think it's better than what we have if I fully understand your comments.
switch (...) {
case REGISTER:
if (!(ksdei && vsdei)) {
ret = SDEI_NOT_SUPPORTED;
break;
}
ret = kvm_sdei_hypercall_register(vcpu);
break;
case UNREGISTER:
if (!(ksdei && vsdei)) {
ret = SDEI_NOT_SUPPORTED;
break;
}
ret = kvm_sdei_hypercall_unregister(vcpu);
break;
case CONTEXT:
ret = kvm_sdei_hypercall_context(vcpu);
break;
:
}
Thanks,
Gavin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists