On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:44:29PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 27 November 2014 at 18:40, Christoffer Dall
> <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The implementation of KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT is currently not doing what
> > userspace expects, namely making sure that a vcpu which may have been
> > turned off using PSCI is returned to its initial state, which would be
> > powered on if userspace does not set the KVM_ARM_VCPU_POWER_OFF flag.
> >
> > Implment the expected functionality and clarify the ABI.
>
> ("Implement", if you have to respin.)
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> > index 9e193c8..4dcc8c2 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> > @@ -663,6 +663,8 @@ static int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_vcpu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > */
> > if (__test_and_clear_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_POWER_OFF, vcpu->arch.features))
> > vcpu->arch.pause = true;
> > + else
> > + vcpu->arch.pause = false;
>
> Out of curiosity, why do we have to test-and-clear the bit rather than
> just testing it?
>
No reason, I think we used to do this when we were always testing the
flag directly instead of through the pause flag.
I'll add a change of this.
-Christoffer
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
