On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Sure, I'll make this a separate patch and send it soon.
--
Anup
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
> --
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
