On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 05:02:44PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 03:57:34PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > Since SVE will be enabled or disabled on a per-vcpu basis, a flag
> > is needed in order to track which vcpus have it enabled.
> >
> > This patch adds a suitable flag and a helper for checking it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 8 ++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 9671ddd..609d08b 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -308,6 +308,14 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
> > #define KVM_ARM64_FP_HOST (1 << 2) /* host FP regs loaded */
> > #define KVM_ARM64_HOST_SVE_IN_USE (1 << 3) /* backup for host TIF_SVE */
> > #define KVM_ARM64_HOST_SVE_ENABLED (1 << 4) /* SVE enabled for EL0 */
> > +#define KVM_ARM64_GUEST_HAS_SVE (1 << 5) /* SVE exposed to guest */
> > +
> > +static inline bool vcpu_has_sve(struct kvm_vcpu_arch const *vcpu_arch)
>
> Shouldn't this vcpu function take a vcpu instead of a vcpu_arch?
Logically it could. There was some circular include issue that made it
tricky to get the definition of struct kvm_vcpu here, but I may have
another go at it.
Cheers
---Dave
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
