On 10/12/13 05:05, Anup Patel wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Christoffer Dall
> <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 09:19:59PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
>>> @@ -39,9 +44,6 @@ static int handle_hvc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>>>
>>> static int handle_smc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>>> {
>>> - if (kvm_psci_call(vcpu))
>>> - return 1;
>>> -
>>
>> Isn't this an unrelated change, which should go in a separate patch with
>> some justification text for the change?
>
> Actually, handle_smc() was already using kvm_psci_call() so I had to change
> it anyway because of changes in kvm_psic_call(). Also, user space emulation
> of SMC-based PSCI is going to be different from in-kernel HVC-based PSCI
> emulation hence, for now it seemed more appropriate to inject undefined
> exception for KVM arm64 (just like KVM arm).
Doh. I though I got rid of that.
That chunk should have been been removed ages ago (probably before
merging the arm64 code), as per 24a7f6757.
Please make it a separate patch, and I'll merge that independently.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
