[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5d35c9f3-455e-6aa9-fd6a-4433cf70803a@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:52:37 +0200 (CEST)
From: Sebastian Ott <sebott@...hat.com>
To: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@...hat.com>,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>,
Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@...gle.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 08/12] KVM: arm64: PMU: Allow userspace to limit
PMCR_EL0.N for the guest
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> +static int set_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r,
> + u64 val)
> +{
> + struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
> + u64 new_n, mutable_mask;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.config_lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * Make PMCR immutable once the VM has started running, but do
> + * not return an error (-EBUSY) to meet the existing expectations.
> + */
Why should we mention which error we're _not_ returning?
> + if (kvm_vm_has_ran_once(vcpu->kvm)) {
> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->arch.config_lock);
> + return 0;
> + }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists