On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 08:20:14AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 08:18:48AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:49:30PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > In a subsequent patch we'll modify cpus_have_const_cap() to call
> > > cpus_have_final_cap(), and hence we need to define cpus_have_final_cap()
> > > first.
> > >
> > > To make subsequent changes easier to follow, this patch reorders the two
> > > without making any other changes.
> > >
> > > There should be no functional change as a result of this patch.
> >
> > You say this...
[...]
> > > -static __always_inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
> > > +static __always_inline bool cpus_have_final_cap(int num)
> > > {
> > > if (system_capabilities_finalized())
> > > return __cpus_have_const_cap(num);
> > > else
> > > - return cpus_have_cap(num);
> > > + BUG();
> >
> > ... but isn't the failure case of calling cpus_have_final_cap() early now
> > different? What does BUG() do at EL2 w/ nVHE?
>
> Ah no, sorry, I see you're just moving things around and the diff makes it
> look confusing (that and I've been up since 5:30 for KVM Forum).
Indeed; the diff was even more confusing before I split this from the
changes in the next patch!
> So on closer inspection:
>
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cheers!
Mark.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
