On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:59 PM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:38 PM Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 5:20 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > ENTRY(cpu_do_suspend) > > > > mrs x2, tpidr_el0 > > > > @@ -73,6 +75,9 @@ alternative_endif > > > > stp x8, x9, [x0, #48] > > > > stp x10, x11, [x0, #64] > > > > stp x12, x13, [x0, #80] > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK > > > > + str x18, [x0, #96] > > > > +#endif > > > > > > Do we need the #ifdefery here? We didn't add that to the KVM path, > > > and I'd feel better having a single behaviour, specially when > > > NR_CTX_REGS is unconditionally sized to hold 13 regs. > > > > I'm fine with dropping the ifdefs here in v5 unless someone objects to this. > > Oh, yeah I guess it would be good to be consistent. Rather than drop > the ifdefs, would you (Marc) be ok with conditionally setting > NR_CTX_REGS based on CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK, and doing so in KVM? > (So 3 ifdefs, rather than 0)? > > Without any conditionals or comments, it's not clear why x18 is being > saved and restored (unless git blame survives, or a comment is added > in place of the ifdefs in v6). True. Clearing the sleep state buffer in cpu_do_resume is also pointless without CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK, so if the ifdefs are removed, some kind of an explanation is needed there. Sami
