On 15/12/16 11:35, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:18:48AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> On 14/12/16 10:46, Russell King wrote: >>> @@ -231,10 +244,14 @@ ENDPROC(__hyp_stub_do_trap) >>> * initialisation entry point. >>> */ >>> ENTRY(__hyp_get_vectors) >>> - mov r0, #-1 >>> + mov r0, #HVC_GET_VECTORS >> >> This breaks the KVM implementation of __hyp_get_vectors, easily fixed >> with the following patchlet: > > Right, so what Mark said is wrong: > > "The hyp-stub is part of the kernel image, and the API is private to > that particular image, so we can change things -- there's no ABI to > worry about." I think Mark is right. The API *is* private to the kernel, and KVM being the only in-kernel hypervisor on ARM, this is not an ABI. It is an unfortunate bug that no symbolic constant was used to highlight the two implementations of the same functionality, but I don't think that makes anything wrong in what Mark said here. > So no, I'm going with my original patch (which TI has tested) which is > the minimal change, and if we _then_ want to rework the HYP mode > interfaces, that's the time to do the other changes when more people > (such as KVM folk) are paying attention and we can come to a cross- > hypervisor agreement on what the interface should be. Given that there is a single in-kernel hypervisor, I can't really see who we're going to agree anything with... Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
