On 04/07/2019 15:56, James Morse wrote:
Hi Julien,
Hi James,
Thank you for the review.
On 20/06/2019 14:06, Julien Grall wrote:
We will want to re-use the ASID allocator in a separate context (e.g
allocating VMID). So move the code in a new file.
The function asid_check_context has been moved in the header as a static
inline function because we want to avoid add a branch when checking if the
ASID is still valid.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/context.c b/arch/arm64/mm/context.c
index 3df63a28856c..b745cf356fe1 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/context.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/context.c
@@ -23,46 +23,21 @@
-#define ASID_FIRST_VERSION(info) NUM_ASIDS(info)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/lib/asid.c b/arch/arm64/lib/asid.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..7252e4fdd5e9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm64/lib/asid.c
@@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
+#define ASID_FIRST_VERSION(info) (1UL << ((info)->bits))
(oops!)
Good catch, I will fix it in the next version.
@@ -344,7 +115,7 @@ static int asids_init(void)
if (!asid_allocator_init(&asid_info, bits, ASID_PER_CONTEXT,
asid_flush_cpu_ctxt))
panic("Unable to initialize ASID allocator for %lu ASIDs\n",
- 1UL << bits);
+ NUM_ASIDS(&asid_info));
Could this go in the patch that adds NUM_ASIDS()?
Actually this change is potentially wrong. This relies on asid_allocator_init()
to set asid_info.bits even if the function fails.
So I think it would be best to keep 1UL << bits here.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
