On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 29/11/16 09:36, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >> On 29/11/16 03:28, Jintack Lim wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 28/11/16 17:43, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> >>> This looks much cleaner than my patch. >>> While we are at it, is it worth to consider that we just need to set >>> those bits once for VHE case, not for every world switch as an >>> optimization? >> >> >> Ah! That's a much better idea indeed! And we could stop messing with >> cntvoff_el2 as well, as it doesn't need to be restored to zero on exit. >> Could you try and respin something along those lines? >> > > fyi, we have a static_key based cpus_have_const_cap() for Constant cap > checking (like this case) available in linux-next. May be you could make use > of that instead of alternatives. Thanks Suzuki. This looks very useful. Marc, can I write a patch based on linux-next? The commit which has cpus_have_const_cap() is not in master and next branch in kvm/arm repo. > > > Cheers > Suzuki > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
