On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 10:36:24AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 06:33:08PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 03:53:55PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 04:25:28PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 01:00:46PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > > > > index 99c3738..c69e137 100644
> > > > > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > > > > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > > > > @@ -1664,6 +1664,10 @@ int kvm_arch_init(void *opaque)
> > > > > if (err)
> > > > > return err;
> > > > >
> > > > > + err = kvm_arm_init_arch_resources();
> > > > > + if (err)
> > > > > + return err;
> > > > > +
> > > > > if (!in_hyp_mode) {
> > > > > err = init_hyp_mode();
> > > > > if (err)
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.1.4
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's not clear to me from the commit message why init_common_resources()
> > > > won't work for this. Maybe it'll be more clear as I continue the review.
> > >
> > > init_common_resources() is for stuff common to arm and arm64.
> >
> > Well currently init_common_resources() only calls kvm_set_ipa_limit(),
> > which isn't implemented for arm. So if there was a plan to only use
> > that function for init that actually does something on both, it doesn't.
>
> Hmmm, perhaps I was wishfully interpreting the word "common" to mean
> what I would like it to mean...
>
> > > kvm_arm_init_arch_resources() is intended for stuff specific to the
> > > particular arch backend.
> >
> > I'm not sure we need that yet. We just need an arm setup sve stub like
> > arm's kvm_set_ipa_limit() stub. OTOH, if we have to keep adding stubs
> > to arm we should probably have something like
> > kvm_arm_init_arch_resources() instead, and kvm_set_ipa_limit() should
> > be moved inside the arm64 one and the arm ipa limit stub can go. Then
> > since init_common_resources() would no longer be used, it could just
> > be deleted.
>
> OK, for simplicity I may call the sve setup directly as you suggest, and
> make an arm stub for it: that feels a bit weird, but there is precedent.
>
> If we end up accumulating a lot of these, we can revisit it and maybe
> invent something like kvm_arm_init_arch_resources() at that point.
>
> Does that sound reasonable?
Yup. Sounds good to me.
Thanks,
drew
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
