Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 03:12:15PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: >> >> Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Some system registers may or may not logically exist for a vcpu >> > depending on whether certain architectural features are enabled for >> > the vcpu. >> > >> > In order to avoid spuriously emulating access to these registers >> > when they should not exist, or allowing the registers to be >> > spuriously enumerated or saved/restored through the ioctl >> > interface, a means is needed to allow registers to be hidden >> > depending on the vcpu configuration. >> > >> > In order to support this in a flexible way, this patch adds a >> > check_present() method to struct sys_reg_desc, and updates the >> > generic system register access and enumeration code to be aware of >> > it: if check_present() returns false, the code behaves as if the >> > register did not exist. >> > >> > For convenience, the complete check is wrapped up in a new helper >> > sys_reg_present(). >> > >> > An attempt has been made to hook the new check into the generic >> > accessors for trapped system registers. This should reduce the >> > potential for future surprises, although the redundant check will >> > add a small cost. No system register depends on this functionality >> > yet, and some paths needing the check may also need attention. >> > >> > Naturally, this facility makes sense only for registers that are >> > trapped. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 20 +++++++++++++++----- >> > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.h | 11 +++++++++++ >> > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > [...] > >> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.h b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.h >> > index cd710f8..dfbb342 100644 >> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.h >> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.h >> > @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@ >> > #ifndef __ARM64_KVM_SYS_REGS_LOCAL_H__ >> > #define __ARM64_KVM_SYS_REGS_LOCAL_H__ >> > >> > +#include <linux/compiler.h> >> > +#include <linux/types.h> >> >> I can see why you want compiler.h, but why types.h? > > For bool (though it felt a bit pedantic). It must be picked up elsewhere because it didn't fail when I rebuilt without it - and the header has been happily using bool up to that point. > > Cheers > ---Dave -- Alex Bennée _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
